IJ1981
Member
I agree. Let's get back to planes, busses and trains! Por Favor.
I agree. Let's get back to planes, busses and trains! Por Favor.
That varies among jurisdictions.Signs don't carry the weight of law.
Again.... READ MY ENTIRE POSTThat varies among jurisdictions.
Well you didn't mention permitted. "I personally have been armed as a private citizen while meeting with lawmakers and the Governor." I suppose they feel more comfortable with an armed LEO.Been legal to carry in the Capitol for over a decade now.
Policy allowing guns in Florida Capitol worries some state employees
Capitol staffers who deal with the public are clearly concerned about their safety after a new law went into effect Oct. 1 allowing anyone with a concealed weapons permit to legally bring a gun into …www.palmbeachpost.com
Florida’s Capitol allows some to carry guns, even amid security threat
Florida has 2.2 million people who have permits to carry guns. They can walk armed under the Rotunda, roam the corridors, visit lawmakers’ offices or visit the 22nd-floor observation deck.www.tampabay.com
I worked protective operations for prior Governors in FL as a LEO and worked at the FL Capitol too. The public frequently is armed at the FL Capitol. It is not a gun-free zones even though FDLE makes it appear as such with their wording on their website. But then on the bottom they say folks can carry.
Prohibited Items
www.fdle.state.fl.us
FDLE's website is out of date. We no longer need permits to carry.
I personally have been armed as a private citizen while meeting with lawmakers and the Governor.
Well, some reality-based, experienced-based views rather than hand-wringing pearl-clutching on the matter of an "armed society !"I say what I'm about to say through a lens with 16+ years in law enforcement (plus 3 combat deployments as Marine Infantry prior to that). I don't think my experience makes me a wizard. I value and respect the opinions of normal, everyday, not leo or military, citizens. But I do have more experience dealing with crime, the victimized, predators, and prey than most.
I don't believe, I KNOW, that an increase in good people opting to arm AND HAVE A MINDSET TO DEFEND themselves and other innocents would reduce crime significantly in rather short order. Generally most criminals, delinquents, and deviants are not the "brave tough guy" deep down inside that they try and project to be. They have a self preservation filter, just like everyone else. Bullys mostly don't try and bully someone that they know might hurt their feelings. Criminals genetally don't victimize those that they believe can effectively fight back. Bullys look for people that they believe they can take, and generally it's to stroke their own ego and improve self esteem. Criminals also don't try and rob or steal from someone that they believe may give them a run for their money. They would rather pick an easy target. If bully's and criminals know that the average person is armed in one place, they are going to another place with much better survival odds (for the bully or criminal) to do their nefarious deeds.
Sure there are wildcards to this. There are, in fact, some people who will test almost anyone. There are, in fact, the crazy brave. Most of these people aren't even criminals or deviant, though. They box, fight MMA, or have some other outlet. It's pretty rare that the crazy brave are criminal or deviant. But a few are, and they will likely reak havoc in an armed society... at least until most of them meet their match. This would be the Billy the Kids. And they would hurt some innocents until someone stepped up and dispatched them. This phenomenon would be kinda rare, but it would occur. The rest of the criminal deviants would resort to skulking around at night hitting targets where no one is there to confront them. In fact most already do.
Of course, there are two giant caveats. One is that many good people are afraid to stand up or intervene because they fear they will get in trouble. In the modern litigious society, this fear is not unfounded. In fact, I dare say more people do not intervene to stop crimes out of fear of being ostracized or facing legal troubles than those who do not intervene out of fear of being harmed. These people would need to know that society had their back. The second caveat is there WOULD need to be stiff criminal penalties to deter would-be bullys that go around looking for fights. This would kneecap many (not all) of the crazy brave who would instigate unneeded duals or fights.
Under these conditions, I posit that an armed society would be a VERY polite and lawful society. More so than what we have today.
I surely agree that there are inherent "sensitive places" where at least safe storage of firearms might be advisable, but we have seen in recent times where the concept of "sensitive locations" has been abused to the point of essentially infringing on all gun rights. Need I cite examples?I'm not really in favor of firearm restrictions, but I believe being on an airplane with somebody with a firearm makes for an especially vulnerable situation for everybody on that plane. Doesn't even have to be some psycho intending to do harm, just some idiot with a gun who makes a mistake runs the risk for way too much collateral damage. I'd say, probably no on the plane, as far as carrying on their person. I would be in favor of them making you store your weapon and ammunition separately in a locked container.
Trains, bus, subway? I don't have a problem with any of those. The plane is the only one I think should be regulated for traveling with, but not prohibited.
...Sensitive places are well known tactic to make carry useless. This has been recommended as a tactic since shall issue laws became common.
Nor was the air pressure outside the room only 4.4 psi. <grin> <Official Nerd-Approved response>So it is true that sensitive places are a tactic. However, unless you have no common sense - the airliner is a specific risk profile that is a reasonable ban. I've carried to legislative hearings in the TX Capitol. However, that was not floating in the air.
Such stifled thinking. The really dangerous aspect of any firearm is the user. No firearm ever harmed anyone without the intent of the user.Republicans should campaign on allowing domestic abusers, mental patients and no-fly list quasi terrorists on planes with guns and, of course, repealing the machine gun ban at the same time. You know, freedom for gun owners trumps all other considerations in society and the rest of the Bill of Rights. I mean, like it's the 2nd amendment and, obviously, well-regulated militia includes that above.
BTW, that's exactly what these rhetorical circle- um... dead-end conversations- seem to lead to.