gun in locked car out of sight ok effective 01 july 2014

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Redhorse

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 8, 2013
    2,124
    63
    I think the solution to both of these is not forcibly making them allow carry, but making them directly responsible and liable should someone be attacked in their designated gun free zone. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways either. Strip me of my right to defend myself and you should be shouldering the responsibility for that instead of standing back and saying "Not my fault." As it stands, businesses/property owners/ACOE/school zones can not only tell us we can't have firearms/weapons/etc... but also claim that they aren't responsible for us if we're attacked on their property. Along with this there should be some shielding of businesses and property owners from legal action simply because an attack took place on their property as long as they are following state laws regarding weapons.
    This. This pretty much sums up my thoughts on self defense rights. Some states allow stores to post no gun signs that have the weight of law behind them. At this point I think that those signs having the weight of law should not be allowed because the Aurora theatre shooting pretty much convinced me that a business allowing public access then leaving its costumers as sitting ducks was wrong, no one was able (in theory) to defend themselves.
    The Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice your religion. By your logic, since I should be able to keep and bear arms on your property (regardless of your feelings about firearms) shouldn't I also be able to conduct a prayer service in your store (again, regardless of your feelings towards my particular religion)?
    We are making two different arguments. I speak of self defense rights while you speak of constitutional rights. See my aforementioned Aurora example. Like I said, they brought them in and gladly took their money then forcibly took away part of their self defense rights. Sure they could have had knives to defend themselves I guess, but they aren't too much good against a *gasp* "assault" rifle.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    52,183
    113
    Mitchell
    This. This pretty much sums up my thoughts on self defense rights. Some states allow stores to post no gun signs that have the weight of law behind them. At this point I think that those signs having the weight of law should not be allowed because the Aurora theatre shooting pretty much convinced me that a business allowing public access then leaving its costumers as sitting ducks was wrong, no one was able (in theory) to defend themselves.

    We are making two different arguments. I speak of self defense rights while you speak of constitutional rights. See my aforementioned Aurora example. Like I said, they brought them in and gladly took their money then forcibly took away part of their self defense rights. Sure they could have had knives to defend themselves I guess, but they aren't too much good against a *gasp* "assault" rifle.

    No we're not. You have an unalienable right to keep and bear arms and to practice the religion of your choice. They're both God given rights, specifically called out in the Constitution. Neither were supposed to acted upon (especially against) by the federal .gov. Now, if we're going along with incorporation, both also apply to the states...but neither prevents individuals from enacting policies and rules for their properties. You want the state (maybe even the federalalies) to override a person's property rights to impose your rights over theirs. If you're successful at one, you have to allow for others.
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    ...Like I said, they brought them in and gladly took their money then forcibly took away part of their self defense rights...

    There's your flaw. Nothing was forcibly taken away from anyone. Everyone who disarmed and paid money to be there still maintained the right to be armed

    ...just not there.

    They willingly waived their right and met the conditions to attend. There is no reason for the burden of responsibility for their own defense to fall upon the property owner regardless of their policies.
     

    Redhorse

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 8, 2013
    2,124
    63
    No we're not. You have an unalienable right to keep and bear arms and to practice the religion of your choice. They're both God given rights, specifically called out in the Constitution. Neither were supposed to acted upon (especially against) by the federal .gov. Now, if we're going along with incorporation, both also apply to the states...but neither prevents individuals from enacting policies and rules for their properties. You want the state (maybe even the federalalies) to override a person's property rights to impose your rights over theirs. If you're successful at one, you have to allow for others.

    There's your flaw. Nothing was forcibly taken away from anyone. Everyone who disarmed and paid money to be there still maintained the right to be armed

    ...just not there.

    They willingly waived their right and met the conditions to attend. There is no reason for the burden of responsibility for their own defense to fall upon the property owner regardless of their policies.
    From reading this, I guess Indiana has the best policy in place in most cases. However, there are some instances where it seems to me it goes too far, most notably places that receive public funding. I just want re reiterate that I believe gun free signs should not hold the weight of law first and foremost which I know they don't here but they do in other states.
     
    Top Bottom