Firearms on the Great Loop Route laws and regs?

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.

BruceK said:

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.

Click to expand...

For most of our nation's history, we had only federal laws regarding guns. Those who couldn't impose their will at the federal level, then switched to the state level.

Gun laws and boat use taxes are 2 big bones of contention for those that want to cruise the USA.

Ted

BruceK said:

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.

Click to expand...

No different than dozens of other things such as use of radar detectors or hand held cell phones or speed limits when driving. Or liquor laws, to name just a few. Boating is super simple in comparison.

caltexflanc said:

No different than dozens of other things such as use of radar detectors or hand held cell phones or speed limits when driving. Or liquor laws, to name just a few. Boating is super simple in comparison.

Click to expand...

Relieved to hear it`s not really a problem after all.

Being as I am from the fine state of Taxachusetts, and have a class A LTC I am mighty chagrined to hear my politicians rant about how 'safe' Mass is, and how the State Police are the finest in the land and don't accept ANY of the other 49 states authority as being on par as far as background check, record and database. One shining example of stupid is as stupid does. I NEVER carry into, through NYC. Mandatory sentence for anyone without NYC. Yes. CITY license for handgun.

Not that I would espouse it, But before you get to NJ waters, and until you clear the 5 boroughs dismantle and stow the handgun in separate areas of the boat. Then reassemble. Don't carry. The penalty is too great. But, on the other hand..... Don't stop in NJ or NYC. Don't give them your money.
NYC does NOT have a castle law regarding handguns. Mass does.

BruceK said:

Relieved to hear it`s not really a problem after all.

Click to expand...

It applies to so many things. We're in a strange situation with so many state laws, some city laws, on top of federal laws. Most countries are more uniform across the country. Canada has some province differences. We were divided into states when distances were so great in time and communication. Now no state wants to relinquish rights. The relationship between states and federal really needs a major reworking but it's not going to happen. I don't own a gun, never have, never will, but I still sympathize with those who do and follow all laws trying to stay legal but then face issues of travel. This isn't just a boating issue either. People have issues in cars as well. They arrive at their destination and are subject to different laws. A question that we can't really answer and would require one to do many hours of research state by state is absurd. Laws should be simple and clear. Gun laws are the opposite.

BandB said:

It applies to so many things. We're in a strange situation with so many state laws, some city laws, on top of federal laws. Most countries are more uniform across the country. Canada has some province differences. We were divided into states when distances were so great in time and communication. Now no state wants to relinquish rights. The relationship between states and federal really needs a major reworking but it's not going to happen. I don't own a gun, never have, never will, but I still sympathize with those who do and follow all laws trying to stay legal but then face issues of travel. This isn't just a boating issue either. People have issues in cars as well. They arrive at their destination and are subject to different laws. A question that we can't really answer and would require one to do many hours of research state by state is absurd. Laws should be simple and clear. Gun laws are the opposite.

Click to expand...

Confusing, so how does all this state/federal jurisdiction squabble stack up against the oft mentioned second amendment.I assume US federal law trumps state law,with the constitution providing the guiding principles in codifying legislation, or maybe not?

Andy G said:

Confusing, so how does all this state/federal jurisdiction squabble stack up against the oft mentioned second amendment.I assume US federal law trumps state law,with the constitution providing the guiding principles in codifying legislation, or maybe not?

Click to expand...

The problem becomes one of practicality.

A state legislative body can enact any law they want to enact. Even the US congress can enact any law they want to.

Then when someone gets charged under that law, they can challenge it, making in the case of firearms a claim that the law infringes on their 2nd ammendment right to keep and bear arms.

Until just a few years ago it was untested as to wether that 2nd ammendment right was vested in the individual or the state "militia". This question was answered by the US supreme court in District of Columbia Vs Heller (2008), in which the court found that the right to keep and bear arms is vested in the individual.

So...

From a practical standpoint until somebody actually tests wether a particular state law is valid, it is presumed to be valid, and in enforcable as such.

This gets even more interesting in the case of boats. For example a jurisdiction could have a statute in place allowing the possession of a loaded firearm in your home, but ban the possession in a vehicle. Then the question becomes wether a boat that you are living on represents your "home" or a "vehicle". There might even be case law where a court found that a boat is a vehicle, but until the specific question gets asked of a court as to wether a boat that you are actually living on is a "home" or a "Vehicle" then you could be charged under that statute for illegally possessing a firearm in a "vehicle" even though to you it is your "home".

You could also challenge the law by making a claim that a law banning possession of a loaded firearm in a "vehicle" infringes on your right to keep and bear arms.

Only time and dollars for legal fees will answer these questions.

Andy G said:

Confusing, so how does all this state/federal jurisdiction squabble stack up against the oft mentioned second amendment.I assume US federal law trumps state law,with the constitution providing the guiding principles in codifying legislation, or maybe not?

Click to expand...

It doesn't conflict with the second amendment at all as long as their are provisions to allow people deemed safe to own firearms deemed safe. The second amendment by no means says anyone can have a gun wherever they want with no regulation. Also, the second amendment is about a militia being necessary for a free state/country. Well, we have military.

This is really no different than interpretations of the first amendment. First, the first amendment only says what Congress can do. Freedom of religious expression was the area covered with freedom of speech, the press, and the right to assemble following. However, freedom doesn't mean unlimited. One person's rights can infringe on the rights of others. The first example often mentioned when discussing freedom of speech is that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Seems common sense, but that's a limitation on speech just as you can't threaten bodily harm and you can't say things that violate other constitutional rights.

"It doesn't conflict with the second amendment at all as long as their are provisions to allow people deemed safe to own firearms deemed safe"

I missed that , where is it written? Who deems who "safe".?

"The second amendment by no means says anyone can have a gun wherever they want with no regulation. Also, the second amendment is about a militia being necessary for a free state/country. Well, we have military. "

In that era the "militia" was EVERY male from 15 to about 50.

"Regulated" meant a weapon in good working condition , usually with a supply of powder and ball.

Word meanings change over 200+ years their Concept does not.

BruceK said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BandB said:

Also, the second amendment is about a militia being necessary for a free state/country. Well, we have military.

Click to expand...

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

ranger42c said:

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

Click to expand...

BandB said:

Also, the second amendment is about a militia being necessary for a free state/country. Well, we have military.

Click to expand...

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.

ksanders said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jleonard said:

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.

Click to expand...

One slight difference between your boat and your home....it moves.

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 said:

One slight difference between your boat and your home....it moves.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. It qualifies for the irs, etc.

jleonard said:

Doesn't matter. It qualifies for the irs, etc.

Click to expand...

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.

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." :lol:

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.

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 said:

Silly states. Can't agree on red lights or rotaries. I give up on guns.

Click to expand...

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?

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

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.

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

Wish they would go back to profiling and leave us law abiding old white guys alone.

Ted

O C Diver said:

Wish they would go back to profiling and leave us law abiding old white guys alone.

Ted

Click to expand...

Ya gotta watch that particular crowd...didn't they start the last revolution?

psneeld said:

Ya gotta watch that particular crowd...didn't they start the last revolution?

Click to expand...

Yep. Won it, too.