The Greatest Gun Bill Ever

[Valica]

edit: nvm

[The Emerald Dawn]

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Alright, you go ahead and try to refuse service to all black people who enter your restaurant and see how far you get.

Those signs are, from what I know, for business owners to kick out unruly or rude patrons.
Not to remove people who disagree with you on something like gun ownership, especially when it is legal in your state.

I wasn't aware "convicted rapist" was a protected category.

[WestRedMaple]

They should include concealed carry so that people can't figure out how many gun-owners there are. Landowners that do not support this should be allowed to refuse the carriers, if they wish.

I don't think business owners should be allowed to discriminate against people who are not breaking the law.
In Indiana, "no guns allowed" signs on public businesses hold no legal power and you can't be thrown out for disobeying.

Which I approve of. If you aren't doing something wrong, people shouldn't discriminate.

I do not think that is accurate. I think you can kick someone out of a business for behavior violating the rules of said establishment.

This is as it should be. The decision to enter someone else's business is a voluntary one, and they have every right to set such rules. Now, they might lose some business (if I walk up to your store and see the sign, then when I walk back to my car to put away my handgun, there is a distinct possibility that I'll just be getting in my car and going to another business), but they have every right to make the decision for themselves

[Valica]

edit: nvm

[Valica]

edit: nvm

[The Emerald Dawn]

I wasn't aware "convicted rapist" was a protected category.

Are you incapable of fucking reading? I said in a previous post that you could refuse service to people on a sex offender registry afaik.
But for other crimes, you'd have less luck kicking them out.

No, actually, you wouldn't.

That's my point, Captain Swearsalot. You can't refuse service based on a protected category.

"Convicted Felon" is not a protected category.

If someone has a history of shoplifting, which isn't a felony, you can also refuse to serve them.

You just can't say, "Get out of my business you (nigger/fag/kike/diego/WOP/whore/etc)."

It's not my fault you don't understand law. However, you can easily refuse service to someone because they are carrying a gun. Gun-locomotion-device isn't a protected category.

[WestRedMaple]

Ok, so let's say this bill passes.

Then what? The streets would be people carrying pistols and what not, and would be scared sh*tless that anyone could suddenly pull out a firearm and start shooting. Imagine going to a café. Any second, someone could pull out a gun and shoot. No one would be able to eat safely, always fearing someone would start shooting.

I dunno about you, but I'd rather not know people carried guns then doing so openly.

Since the inventions of the firearm and the cafe, someone pulling out a firearm to shoot someone at a cafe has been a possibility. The law is not relevant to that.

If the fear is based on seeing a firearm (as you seem to indicate), that is irrational, and called a phobia. I don't think that phobias should have any place in deciding law.

[Valica]

edit: nvm

[Oceanic people]

There's several competing bills in Texas that are trying to make open carry of handguns by licensed owners legal.

Parade of Open Gun Bills in Texas Exposes Divide in Ranks

But one particular bills stands out. HB 195- proposed by Texas Representative Jonathan Stickman- not only allows open carry of handguns, but also allows the open carry of firearms WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A LICENSE.

My Legislative Agenda for the 84th Session

House Bill 195
Allows for the lawful carrying of firearms and removes the requirement of a permit to carry a firearm

HB195

Allowing anyone who can afford a handgun to carry one without needing to purchase a permit. WHAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG!? I understand there's a gun enthusiast community on this forum, but good God even they ought to see that letting ANYONE carry a gun openly outside of their homes without a need for a license is just a fucking catastrophe waiting to happen.

A catastrophe.... No, I don't think so. Before the gutless cowards and their enablers (lawyers/judges/cops & jailers) who lived in fear that someone might shoot the assholes who needed shooting and thus 'rob' them of their 'fees' and 'court costs' and 'funding' for police and jailers to lock up people who would other wise be dead, we the people, got along just fine. If the thugs knew that anyone, literally ANYONE, might bust a cap in their ass I think 'they' would act right. What do you think? People acting right.... god damn catastrophic indeed!

[The Nihilistic view]

If landowners are given the power to decide then people carrying guns on their land when they say "No Guns" would be breaking the law wouldn't they.

I didn't say landowner. I said business owner.
Businesses are public places and should be regulated as such.

A home or club is a different story.

The post you quoted said Landowner.

And public places can be regulated or have people be given the choice as happens all the time with various issues.

[Grimadean]

What's wrong with discrimination? If rape was legal, then I would still love to kick a known rapist out of my business.

I'm pretty sure you can't kick someone out of your business for having a record if they served their time and are not on a sex offender registry.
But you said rapist, so they would be.

If someone is convicted of murder and serves their time, you can't kick them out of your store afaik.

I never said what US law says, because I don't give a crap about it. It only matters as far as how much they can coerce people to do it. Only those without compassion or sense would support something just because coercionists said it was law. That's not saying you are either of those, but that is why I do not care.

I am saying how it should ideally be. If rape was legal or even if someone has served their time, then I should still be allowed to refuse them. If I supported rape, then I should be allowed to allow known rapists into my business whether or not it was illegal and they served their time.

What's wrong with discrimination? If rape was legal, then I would still love to kick a known rapist out of my business.

So you're like one of the people who wouldn't let a black man or a homosexual work at your business back when these traits were frowned upon in the US?

*searches through my comments* I'm sorry, but I don't speak in anagrams or dyslexia. I said that I think people should be allowed to decide who comes onto their property, home, business or otherwise. I never said that I would not let a black man or a homosexual work at my business when these traits were frowned upon in the US. Why would I care what a population thinks? I am an agorist and, so long as they are making me more money than a white man or a heterosexual, I would employ them.

[WestRedMaple]

I do not think that is accurate. I think you can kick someone out of a business for behavior violating the rules of said establishment.

This is as it should be. The decision to enter someone else's business is a voluntary one, and they have every right to set such rules. Now, they might lose some business (if I walk up to your store and see the sign, then when I walk back to my car to put away my handgun, there is a distinct possibility that I'll just be getting in my car and going to another business), but they have every right to make the decision for themselves

No, it is accurate, buddy.
State laws in Indiana dictate that signs claiming a business is gun-free or that no guns are allowed hold no legal power and are simply a request by the business owner.
They urge patrons to follow them to avoid conflict, but you can't get in trouble or kicked out for disobeying them.

Would you mind posting a link to the law prohibiting people from kicking you out based on carry of a firearm? Indiana is my home state, and I'd be very interested in learning about that. (I haven't lived there since 2001, so I'm not exactly up-to-date on Indiana law)

Which is how it should be. If I am following the laws of a state, then businesses in said state should not be legally able to bar me.
They are PUBLIC places that all citizens have access to, so no discriminatory rules should exist.

Private homes or clubs are different.

I still have to disagree there. Private businesses are private property, not public. Private owners should be the people deciding on rules for their property.

[Gauthier]

What's wrong with discrimination? If rape was legal, then I would still love to kick a known rapist out of my business.

So you're like one of the people who wouldn't let a black man or a homosexual work at your business back when these traits were frowned upon in the US?

Because clearly gun owners are an oppressed minority.

[Paddy O Fernature]

So you're like one of the people who wouldn't let a black man or a homosexual work at your business back when these traits were frowned upon in the US?

Because clearly gun owners are an oppressed minority.

If the control freaks in congress and abroad had their way, yes, we would be. Mainly because they absolutely refuse to truly compromise with lawful gun owners on anything they attempt to push forth.

[The Nihilistic view]

Because clearly gun owners are an oppressed minority.

If the control freaks in congress and abroad had their way, yes, we would be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY

[Gauthier]

Because clearly gun owners are an oppressed minority.

If the control freaks in congress and abroad had their way, yes, we would be.

Republican Congress wanting to ban guns. Is this Bizarro World?

[Occupied Deutschland]

However, the vast majority are just fine. Gun control freaks just like to scare people into supporting their own agenda. They try to infect everyone around them and transfer their own fears onto everyone else.

I would gladly settle for occasional psychological checks and a test to make sure you know what the hell you're doing.

As I've mentioned before psychological checks are complicated and nigh-impossible to standardize, would be expensive as fuck to administer as a prerequisite or on a regular basis just because 'OMG guns, ya'all must be cray-cray!', and most problematically for the idea aren't predictors of future mental health.

Then of course one would have to come up with a standard that was fair. Do people with Asperger's qualify as mentally healthy enough to own firearms? Or people with other levels of autism? What about obsessive-compulsive people or people with ADD or ADHD or an anxiety disorder?

[Paddy O Fernature]

If the control freaks in congress and abroad had their way, yes, we would be.

Republican Congress wanting to ban guns. Is this Bizarro World?

Yes, act like Congress for some time hasn't attempted to be the bane of law abiding citizens everywhere, just because a political shift just hit.

[Occupied Deutschland]

If the control freaks in congress and abroad had their way, yes, we would be.

Republican Congress wanting to ban guns. Is this Bizarro World?

Control freaks in this instance is a subset of Congress.
Not all of Congress was replaced in the previous election.
Therefore, one can quite easily presume that 'control freaks' still applies to that subset of Congress which did not get replaced and hold the view under discussion.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Republican Congress wanting to ban guns. Is this Bizarro World?

Control freaks in this instance is a subset of Congress.
Not all of Congress was replaced in the previous election.
Therefore, one can quite easily presume that 'control freaks' still applies to that subset of Congress which did not get replaced.

^

[Risottia]

I would gladly settle for occasional psychological checks and a test to make sure you know what the hell you're doing.

As I've mentioned before psychological checks are complicated and nigh-impossible to standardize, would be expensive as fuck to administer as a prerequisite or on a regular basis just because 'OMG guns, ya'all must be cray-cray!', and most problematically for the idea aren't predictors of future mental health.

Then of course one would have to come up with a standard that was fair. Do people with Asperger's qualify as mentally healthy enough to own firearms? Or people with other levels of autism? What about obsessive-compulsive people or people with ADD or ADHD or an anxiety disorder?

How about going along the same guidelines for motor vehicles, just to begin with?
Here's a link to the British ones. http://www.mind.org.uk/information-supp ... -to-drive/
excerpt:

For Severe Anxiety States or Depressive Illnesses, with significant memory or concentration problems, agitation, behavioural disturbance or suicidal thoughts:

For Group 1 licences (eg cars and motorcycles), guidance advises that the driver should stop driving until after medical enquiries are made and the results are known. A period of stability will be needed before driving can begin again.

For Group 2 licences (eg lorries, etc): the guidance indicates that driving should be permitted when the person is well and stable for a period of 6 months. Medication must not cause side effects which would interfere with alertness or concentration. Driving is usually permitted if the anxiety or depression is long-standing but symptom-free, including with the use of medication, as long as the medication does not impair the ability to drive.

For Acute Psychotic Disorders of any Type (not including schizophrenia as this is dealt with separately):

For Group 1, driving should stop during the acute illness, but the driver may regain their driving licence if they

have remained well and stable for at least 3 months
are compliant with treatment
are free from adverse effects of medication which would impair driving
have a favourable medical report.

Drivers with a history of instability and/or poor compliance with treatment may be required to stop driving for a longer period.

There are categories in the guidance covering Hypomania/Mania and for Chronic Schizophrenia and Other Chronic Psychoses. The advice given for these categories is broadly similar to that given for Acute Psychotic Disorders, but there are individual characteristics attached to these conditions which mean that if these conditions are relevant to your situation, you may need personal medical advice and/or legal advice as to how the guidance applies to you in your particular circumstances.

Because each person experiences a mental health condition and the effects of medication differently, it is important to look at what the Regulations say in each individual case.

The guidance also offers advice about Developmental Disorders (which includes Asperger’s Syndrome, autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), Dementia or any Organic Brain Syndrome, Learning Disability, and Personality Disorders.

Other psychiatric conditions that are not specified in the guidance will need to be reported to the DVLA if they are causing or are likely to cause symptoms affecting safe driving, e.g. impairment of consciousness or awareness, or where a person has become more likely to suffer from distraction which may affect the ability to drive safely.

Some types of medication are known to have an effect on the ability to drive, but the guidance points out that ‘drivers with psychiatric illnesses are often safer when well and on regular psychotropic medication than when they are ill. Inadequate treatment or irregular compliance may render a driver impaired by both the illness and medication’.

[Grimadean]

Because clearly gun owners are an oppressed minority.

If the control freaks in congress and abroad had their way, yes, we would be.

O_O I have no idea how I ended up arguing against a gun-supporter.

I just said that I wanted people to have the choice to refuse who comes onto their property. I also believe that people should have the choice on whether or not they own and/or carry a gun. I'm perfectly fine with people getting a tank and so on, so long as they purchased it with their own money and didn't steal. People with money either tend to be nonviolent or defensive anyway, or use violent states to keep people down, either through taxation or regulation, so removing their regulations is .

[Paddy O Fernature]

If the control freaks in congress and abroad had their way, yes, we would be.

O_O I have no idea how I ended up arguing against a gun-supporter.

I just said that I wanted people to have the choice to refuse who comes onto their property. I also believe that people should have the choice on whether or not they own and/or carry a gun. I'm perfectly fine with people getting a tank and so on, so long as they purchased it with their own money and didn't steal. People with money either tend to be nonviolent or defensive anyway, or use violent states to keep people down, either through taxation or regulation, so removing their regulations is .

Wasn't aware we were in an "argument" here....

[Grimadean]

O_O I have no idea how I ended up arguing against a gun-supporter.

I just said that I wanted people to have the choice to refuse who comes onto their property. I also believe that people should have the choice on whether or not they own and/or carry a gun. I'm perfectly fine with people getting a tank and so on, so long as they purchased it with their own money and didn't steal. People with money either tend to be nonviolent or defensive anyway, or use violent states to keep people down, either through taxation or regulation, so removing their regulations is .

Wasn't aware we were in an "argument" here....

Oh, OK.

[Imperializt Russia]

Control freaks in this instance is a subset of Congress.
Not all of Congress was replaced in the previous election.
Therefore, one can quite easily presume that 'control freaks' still applies to that subset of Congress which did not get replaced.

^

You mean the congress that voted against enhanced background checks following the Newtown massacre?