Our Right-to-carry Is Under Attack!

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wcb

member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
114
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
OUR RIGHT-TO-CARRY IS UNDER ATTACK!

DATE: April 29, 2008
TO: USF & NRA Member and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President

In the fight for your firearms freedom, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation were determined to kill Florida's HB503, the bill that protects your right to keep a firearm in your vehicle for personal protection. They even threatened the Legislature and the Governor with a lawsuit. The Legislature was not intimidated -- they passed the bill. Governor Charlie Crist (R) was not intimidated -- he signed it into law. They stood up for you. They stood up for law-abiding gun owners and your self-defense rights against the big business bullies that were trying to eliminate them.

Six days after Governor Crist signed the bill into law, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation rushed into federal court and filed a frivolous lawsuit to try to have the new law overturned. They had already bragged to the media that they would spend huge amounts of money to fight to negate your constitutional and statutory rights.

On April 16 the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported: "The Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation are ready to pay a legal tab they expect to total at least $250,000 to counter what they term an assault on private property rights."

They are relying on Disney, Publix, Walmart and other anti-gun corporate giants to fund their assault on the Legislature, Governor Crist, and on our right-to-carry.

We need your help to raise the money to fight this blatant attack on you and your right to protect yourself and your family.

PLEASE send a contribution TODAY. No matter where you live. No matter what city, what county, what state -- this is a fight that affects all of us. Right-to-carry laws are meaningless if corporate bullies are allowed to eliminate them on a whim.

Click here to send a contribution today.

Please continue to check www.NRAILA.org for updates on this important issue.

My letter to my representatives (doesnt matter where you live, Walmart lives everywhere):

Dear Congressman Doyle,

In the fight for our firearms freedom, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation were determined to kill Florida's HB503, the bill that protects your right to keep a firearm in your vehicle for personal protection. An action funded by backers like Disney, Publix, Walmart and other anti-gun corporate giants to fund their assault on our gun rights.

I would respectively ask you to be prepared for these assaults to reach our state as fears of guns is breading ignorance that is insisting that the very opposite to the solution be enacted. Please protect our right to defend ourselves so we don’t become sitting ducks as in the following statistics that follow stricter gun laws and gun grabs. The Governor of Illinois yesterday called upon people to talk to their neighbors to try and stop crime in neighborhoods after their “strictest in the Country” gun laws has alerted criminals to “go for it” since people are defenseless. Don’t put a sign in Pennsylvanians front lawns saying “kill and rob me, I’m defenseless”. Lets be more like Switzerland who has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) has a homicide rate if 1.2 per 100,000. And to date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland.


Has gun control in Australia curbed crime?

Crime has been rising since a sweeping gun ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,382 personal firearms, government statistics show a dramatic increase in criminal activity. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%.

From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:

• Gun murders up 19%
• Armed robbery up 69%
• Home invasions up 21%

The sad part is that in the 15 years before their national gun confiscation:

• Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%
• Firearm-related deaths fell 50%

Gun crimes are rising throughout Australia after guns were banned. In Sydney alone, robbery rates with guns rose 160% in 2001, more than the previous year.


What effect has gun control had on the United Kingdoms crime rates since their strict gun control went into effect?

• Armed robbery up 170.1%
• Kidnapping/abduction up 144%
• Assault up 130.9%
• Attempted murder up 117.6%
• Sexual assault up 112.6%

Are these the numbers you want in your neighborhood?

Compare this:

Switzerland has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) has a homicide rate if 1.2 per 100,000. And to date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland.

Which numbers do you want in your area?

Perhaps a less dangerous, to law abiding people’s lives, way to solve the problem of criminals using guns to commit crimes would be to enact a law demanding criminals to turn their guns in to their local police department. My guess though that the number of criminal’s gun that will be turned in or found by law enforcement will be just as many as if you impost tougher laws on law abiding people.

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars. (I stole this one from someone here);)

Sincerely,
 
So why does the state of Florida need my money to defend itself in court?
Click to expand...

You must have missed the message; the NRA needs funding to fight this because if they win, we all lose eventually.
 
I have mixed feelings about this. The ability for a gun-owner to park their car on private property with a pistol in the glovebox sounds good until the state uses the same logic to allow other encroachments upon personal property, all in the name of Constitutional expression.

This is not a gun-vs-anti issue; it's about respecting private property - or not.

Wait until the state tells you that you have to let the New Hitler Youth march on your front lawn in a protected expression of speech because you happen to live across from a synagogue, and tell me how much you like this precedent.
 
Well the whole idea of this thread is to alert that there is another infringement in action even tough the Constitution guarantees "shall not be infringed". Some people just aren't getting it. If Walmart wins in Florida, they will domino the Country.

They keep knocking at the door; do we want to let them enter? The NRA is just asking for some help from us. I remember the figure 80 million when it comes to either gun owners or guns (pretty sure it was owners); if each one gave just a dollar for each gun or owner, NRA could fight a better fight for us. Don't you have a dollar or so? I'm on disability and live day to day and donated 25.00; how about you to keep your guns?

When they knock on your door and ask for your guns is not the time to take the threat seriously.

It's also not just about keeping your guns; it's about staying alive. Read the statistics above and see which neighborhood you want to live in.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution limits the government, not citizens, companies, churches, etc. The Second Amendment applies to the government.
Click to expand...

Well I'm confused; I'm saying the people ("We the People") have a right to keep and bear arms that "shall not be infringed" and you're correcting me to say the government only? has the right to keep and bear arms?:what:

Lets take another look:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia defines as: a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers

OR are you correcting me and saying the same thing I'm saying? What am I missing here?:confused:
 
wcb,
What he's saying is that the Constitution only limits the government from infringing on your rights. It doesn't limit private citizens from infringing on them.

I'm with the property owners here. Private property rights are what our freedom is based on. Just like the right to keep and bear arms they have been infringed on too and have been diminished. If you are willing to accept that the government can tell you that you must allow someone to carry a gun on your property, then you must also accept that the government can tell you that you can't build on your property because it might endanger a species of flea or that you can only plant a certain type of grass in your yard.

The right to do what you want with one's own property is every bit as important as the right to keep and bear arms.

Jeff
 
That makes it clear, the previous reply was way over simplified.

That raises a question for me then; my house, lawn (to use your example) is for my personal private use and for the most part made available only to invited guests. I see a Walmart as being very different than my private house and being, though privately owned, for virtually unrestricted public use doesn't that make a difference?
 
I think that the better solution would be to leave the property owners alone to chose for themselves, and then focus instead on passing legislation that limits the property owners liability should someone bring a gun onto their property.

I'd gather that many of these places aren't concerned with honest folks having guns so much as potentially being sued for not prohibiting the items on the premise, or caving to pressure from insurance companies who are afraid of having to cover a claim.
 
(QUOTE) "wcb,
What he's saying is that the Constitution only limits the government from infringing on your rights. It doesn't limit private citizens from infringing on them.
I'm with the property owners here."

I gotta disagree. If we're talking someones personal residence, that's one thing. They can prohibit who or whatever they like, regardless of race, religion,weight, height,sexual and political orientation,etc. BUT..... once that private property becomes a BUISNESS, things change considerably. No longer can they prohibit certain people like they once could have.You see my point? I feel the same thing applies to buisnesses, once "private" property goes "public", the rules change.
 
I see a Walmart as being very different than my private house and being, though privately owned, for virtually unrestricted public use doesn't that make a difference?
Click to expand...
I understand this thought, and I think that it's best expressed by the term 'intent'. If the intent of the property is to function as a space in which the public is generally invited, then it should have different rules applied against it than would property that is by definition intended to be private.

But how do we discriminate between the obvious examples (big box corporate stores) and home businesses or land that's zoned for multiple uses? What about the guy who's got a residence on the same legal plot of ground upon which he runs a small-engine repair shop? You're focusing on the faceless corporations, but the unintended consequences of this is that the rural small business owner is caught up in the same net. And although we're kicking the door of property-owner rights down over something *we* consider acceptable, like guns in cars, I can't help but wonder how the other side of the political spectrum could use this to force some very unpalatable scenarios upon a lot of good folk somewhere down the road.

I've decided that an 'intent' based approach is still wrong, because it relies upon a governing body to decide the intent (via zoning laws or other) and apply a sliding scale of rules accordingly. It just gives the .gov one more weapon in their arsenal to boss folk around and wheedle nuances to fit whatever the agenda-of-the-day happens to want.

No thanks.
 
In a perfect world, property rights would be absolute and property owners would make all the rules for their property. In this world a business can't require a Muslim to leave his headgear home, so why should they be allowed to require me to leave my gun at home? Businesses operate under thousands of laws and I hardly think allowing guns in cars is the most egregious. Another point is that your car is your property which is allowed/invited to temporarily reside on their property, so the property rights argument can apply to both sides.
 
In this world a business can't require a Muslim to leave his headgear home, so why should they be allowed to require me to leave my gun at home? Businesses operate under thousands of laws and I hardly think allowing guns in cars is the most egregious.
Click to expand...
I'd prefer that we work to STOP the madness instead of perpetuate it.
 
Supposedly, a person's car is considered (by me and others) their private property (a mobile oasis, if you will), so, while you may not be able to carry on someone's property (being anywhere outside the doors of your car), you should be able to carry in your car and have a weapon in your vehicle.
Cars are an extension of the home, especially for those people who live in their automobiles.
I agree, someone can tell you not to carry on their private property. You car is not their private property.
Regarding the OP, your letter is somewhat well written. You have some superfluous information and it seems as if you are preaching to the choir , being that you are writing this to the governor, no? Also, you repeat yourself in pretty blatant ways and you make some spelling errors.
Not big problems, but noticeable ones that an anti could take and use as grounds for continued ignorance.

Wait until the state tells you that you have to let the New Hitler Youth march on your front lawn in a protected expression of speech because you happen to live across from a synagogue, and tell me how much you like this precedent.
Click to expand...
The difference is that they'd be protesting on your property. A car owned by someone else parked in your yard is not your property.
A comparable statement would be having the Hitlerjugend protest while in their car that you gave permission to be in your yard. That would be analogous to the issue here. (I believe that it is part of the law that stores, by having parking lots, are giving express permission to have vehicles in their area, if it's not, it really should be, you could have all sorts of weird shiznit come up without it)
 
Originally posted by Hitbackfirst: In a perfect world, property rights would be absolute and property owners would make all the rules for their property. In this world a business can't require a Muslim to leave his headgear home, so why should they be allowed to require me to leave my gun at home? Businesses operate under thousands of laws and I hardly think allowing guns in cars is the most egregious. Another point is that your car is your property which is allowed/invited to temporarily reside on their property, so the property rights argument can apply to both sides.
Click to expand...

Muslim men don't wear headgear. I assume you mean Sikhs.

I do believe that the property owner should have the right to restrict some things on their property including the religious articles of others. In addition to this I do believe that they should be able to restrict employees as well as customers on their property. The problem is that they cannot restrict customers since they have no real leverage. However they can restrict employees and they should have the ability to if they wish to.
 
Supposedly, a person's car is considered (by me and others) their private property (a mobile oasis, if you will), so, while you may not be able to carry on someone's property (being anywhere outside the doors of your car), you should be able to carry in your car and have a weapon in your vehicle.
Cars are an extension of the home, especially for those people who live in their automobiles.
I agree, someone can tell you not to carry on their private property. You car is not their private property.
Click to expand...
You're arguing against the notion of trespass.

"I will only allow those whom I want onto my property."

"I choose NOT to allow those with weapons onto my property."

It's that simple. You can levitate your car over their parking lot if you have the means to do so, but when you ENTER their private property you have tacitly agreed to abide by their rules. The fact that you brought a mobile castle around you doesn't detract from that most basic of concept.

It's not like you should be able to defeat trespass by shielding yourself in a car.

"HaHa! Your puny rulz can't touch ME! I'm in my car! It's my CASTLE!"

That's nonsensical.

A comparable statement would be having the Hitlerjugend protest while in their car that you gave permission to be in your yard.
Click to expand...
But what if I refused permission first, because I just KNEW that they were NoGoodNiks? I have that right, correct? The right to define who I allow onto my property, regardless of their conveyance onto my property?

So how again is Disney or anyone else Being Mean People when they choose to not let people with guns into their parking lot?
 
Very simple, if you allow people to park their car in your parking lot, you are allowing them to park an extension of their home.

If you don't want guns in their homes on your property, you can close the parking lots and your problem is solved..

You see! You still have rights... Don't allow their homes on your property.
 
But what if I refused permission first, because I just KNEW that they were NoGoodNiks? I have that right, correct? The right to define who I allow onto my property, regardless of their conveyance onto my property?
Click to expand...
Then you shouldn't have put a public parking lot on your property.
That is a form of granting permission.
"I will only allow those whom I want onto my property."
"I choose NOT to allow those with weapons onto my property."
Click to expand...
If you want to be a hundred percent sure that there are absolutely NO firearms on your property, then you should not let an automobile, an extension of someone else's home and sovereign property, onto your property. It's that simple.
"HaHa! Your puny rulz can't touch ME! I'm in my car! It's my CASTLE!"
Click to expand...
By that notion, then people can't have sex in their homes because that would be indecent exposure. Your automobile is your home. End of story.
 
Very simple, if you allow people to park their car in your parking lot, you are allowing them to park an extension of their home.
If you don't want guns in their homes on your property, you can close the parking lots and your problem is solved..
Click to expand...
You're missing the point - these private landowners *are* closing their lots to anyone that they feel violates some standard that they have established for entry onto their private property. It's not like they sucker the guests in and ransack their cars for loot. They're telling folks, 'Don't come onto my property one silly millimeter if you have a weapon on/about you.". And they're effectively being told that they cannot do that - that the notion of trespass no longer applies to the borders of their property because those gaining entry have some protected status.

Then you shouldn't have put a public parking lot on your property.
Click to expand...

The key point here is the that it is NOT A PUBLIC LOT. It's a private lot, open to the public with certain restrictions. Don't like the restrictions? Don't park there.

But don't take away my right to have those restrictions; that's a very slipperly slope that leads to dark, nasty places.

You have no right to declare my private property 'public' just because you don't like my restrictions.

By that notion, then people can't have sex in their homes because that would be indecent exposure. Your automobile is your home. End of story.
Click to expand...
Indecent exposure is defined as being exposure of genitalia in the public view. Have sex on your front porch (or in your car), and see how much your castle protects you. You're mixing apples and potatos here. This discussion is about you ENTERING somebody else's' private property. Trespass is when you do so without permission - regardless of whether you're walking, riding a horse, in a car, or hopping around on a pogo stick.

You can't claim protection of your castle in this case because I told you BEFORE YOU ENTERED MY PROPERTY not to show up with a weapon on your person or in your conveyance.

Quote:
A comparable statement would be having the Hitlerjugend protest while in their car that you gave permission to be in your yard.​
But what if I refused permission first, because I just KNEW that they were NoGoodNiks? I have that right, correct? The right to define who I allow onto my property, regardless of their conveyance onto my property?
Click to expand...
And this is the scenario.

I, the Evil Landowner, have told the New Hitler Youth that they may not enter my property for any purpose but that Cub Scout Pack #1911 may do so. What you're advocating is akin to the State coming along and telling me that I cannot make that determination and that I must allow the NeuHitlerjugend access to my property, because their right to assemble and/or engage in public speech is a Protected Right.

Somebody, please stop reciting talking points from the GOA and tell me WHY my scenario and that in Florida right now is any different.

I'd love to hear it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
FL Right-to-carry Under Attack!
Replies
18
Views
2K
Robert Hairless
R
E
  • Locked
FLORIDA: SIGN HB-530 the "Guns-Locked-Up-In-Your-Car”
Replies
0
Views
580
eric.cartman
E
W
  • Locked
Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop New Guns in Parking Lot Law
2 3 4 5
Replies
120
Views
5K
winston smith
W
S
  • Locked
Florida Carry Sues Over University Parking Lot Gun Ban
Replies
2
Views
471
armoredman
armoredman
P
  • Locked
Stearns Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill
Replies
2
Views
386
gc70
gc70
Back
Top