Banning guns within 1000 feet of a political rally

[AndersonIN]

Problem is "WHAT IF your home is less than 1000 feet from a RALLY or WHAT IF your driving your car with in 1000 feet of a rally THIS BILL WILL NEVER PAST

That's just because YOU want to KILL women and children!!!

Case in point I was in Paoli IN last Oct and drove around the circle and guess what........THEY WERE HAVE A POLITICAL RALLY! I took my wife and 3 grandkids over to listen to Mike Pence and several others speak!! A Great time was had by all. EVEN WHEN MIKE CAME OVER TO SPEAK WITH MY FAMILY AND HAD PICTURES TAKEN!!!! ALL THE TIME I WAS OC'ING MY GLOCK!!! God Bless Mike Pence!!!!

But if I had been in ANY of the stores in the surrounding square I would have been illegal under this "law". All are within 1000 ft!!! Including apartments located there!!! Much less with him standing there with his arm around my wife and I!!!

 

[grimor]

What if you have a political rally about the second amendment... can you carry then?

 

[thompal]

The problem with H.R. 822 is if you believe in a limited federal government and states rights. In this case, 822 tramples states rights.

I see your point, but in this case, I don't believe it does, simply because the states have no "right" to violate OUR rights under the U.S. Constitution.

If a state passed a law that said that police could enter your house without a warrant to look for contraband, and the federal government stepped in and said the state could not do that, the feds wouldn't be trampling that state's rights, because that state did not have the right to do that in the first place.

Conversely, if a state passed a law that said anyone over 16 could own a gun, the feds should not be able to step in and declare it void, because there's nothing in the Constitution limiting a citizen's right to keep and bear arms based on age. THAT would be trampling on states' rights. All laws passed by the states must abide by the limitations set out in the federal Constitution.

 

[thompal]

Do you ever get sick of being on the defensive? Why O Why can't the Pro 2A politicians bombard their colleges with appropriate legislation and put the @$$-hats on the defense?

Because it's hard to be on the "offensive" when you are promoting liberty. You only attack to take liberty away, you can't attack someone to make them more free. You can only "attack" someone who it trying to deprive people of their liberty, so that others may enjoy the fruits of your efforts.

 

[thompal]

Problem is "WHAT IF your home is less than 1000 feet from a RALLY or WHAT IF your driving your car with in 1000 feet of a rally THIS BILL WILL NEVER PAST

You don't remember Clinton's "Gun Free School Zone" law, do you? No firearms within 1000' of ANY PROPERTY OWNED by a school, even if that isn't where the school was located.

When it was enacted, someone got a map of Indpls, drew 1000' circles around any property owned by a school, and realized that you could not drive through Indpls on any street, including the interstates.

It still was passed as a law.

 

[thompal]

Where are our rights going?

If politicians are allowed to remain unrestricted in their headlong rush to impose their will on the citizens and increase the power and reach of government, then our rights will be going the same way as the dodo bird.

That's where.

 

[PeaShooter]

My question is why are politicians afforded "special protection" status? Why are they special and require that they be "safer" than their constituents? Is it because of their notariaty? Why not then have gun free zones around anyone famous or that lives in the public eye? Imagine a 1000' gun free zone around Justin Bieber... Remember, all animals are equal, just some are more equal than others...

 

[E5RANGER375]

Sorry, Hoosier8, I have to agree with Titanium_Frost. The gist of HR 822 is that it "forces" the states to recognize each others' permission slips, but it goes deeper than that. They all agreed to the US Constitution when they joined the Union. The 2A has been a part of that since two years after the original document was ratified and each amendment was similarly ratified. The 10A denies to the fedgov any power not granted it in the Constitution, reserving said powers to the states unless otherwise forbidden, or to the people. The 9A clarifies that there are more rights than are specified by name, but the 2A makes clear that NO government has the power to infringe upon the rights to keep and bear arms. The fedgov has been doing it for many years and so have many states, and HR 822 seems to me to be saying that it's time to end that violation of the Constitution.

Further, it doesn't say that every state must recognize all others (full faith and credit, anyone?), it only requires them to do so if they already recognize SOME state permission slip, including their own. In effect, it's saying that states like CA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, and RI will no longer be able to deny Americans from other states their basic, natural rights on a whim.



I support HR 822.

Blessings,
Bill

states rights have nothing to do with this. the states already agreed to everything in the U.S. constitution which includes the right to keep and BEAR arms in ALL of the United States. Im a big supporter of states rights, but this is one of those times I agree that the federal government needs to step in to enforce what the states already agreed to in the 1700's.

everyone here needs to call, write and email your congressmen!

yep this is the govt doing the right thing if its passed.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Imagine a 1000' gun free zone around Justin Bieber... Remember, all animals are equal, just some are more equal than others...

No, imagine if there was not a 1000' gun free zone around Justin Bieber...

The only rational chain of events would lead directly to anarchy....

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Imagine a 1000' gun free zone around Justin Bieber...

Whats a Bieber?

Am I the only one that finds this picture incredibly sexy?