Is the 30.06 a restriction to the 2A?

[APatriot]

Can the case it is a restriction or is not a restriction be presented with "sourcing"?

 

[Bithabus]

No, unless it is posted on a public property that is listed in 46.035.

("Public" as in owned or utilized by the gov't)

 

[MR Redneck]

30.06 on private property is completely fine. You dont have to go there. I respect private property owners wishes and would never agree to any law that tells them otherwise.
30.06 on public property, thats just another infringement.

 

[APatriot]

Merely for purposes of discussion, and particularly for those who advocate not allowing OC is a restriction of the 2A, where does it say in the 2A that private property owners can restrict the right to bear arms on their property?

 

[Bithabus]

Merely for purposes of discussion, and particularly for those who advocate not allowing OC is a restriction of the 2A, where does it say in the 2A that private property owners can restrict the right to bear arms on their property?

What are you talking about?

 

[txinvestigator]

Based on the title of this thread; a proper 30.06 sign in no way violates the 2nd. The bill of rights addresses the government, not private entities

For example, if you say something a business owner does not like, he can make you leave based on that. Doing so is no violation of the 1st.

The owner of this site can edit or delete any post he desires. No violation.

This is really just civics 101

 

[Bithabus]

Based on the title of this thread; a proper 30.06 sign in no way violates the 2nd. The bill of rights addresses the government, not private entities

For example, if you say something a business owner does not like, he can make you leave based on that. Doing so is no violation of the 1st.

The owner of this site can edit or delete any post he desires. No violation.


This is really just civics 101

Except, in some cases, public entities can post enforceable 30.06. In those cases our 2nd amendment rights are being infringed.

 

[APatriot]

Actually the Bill of Rights does not address the government, but rather addresses those individual rights which can't be squandered by a centralized tyranny. That is Civics 101 which based on your comment you were absent during class.

 

[MR Redneck]

Merely for purposes of discussion, and particularly for those who advocate not allowing OC is a restriction of the 2A, where does it say in the 2A that private property owners can restrict the right to bear arms on their property?

All of that crap you just spouted off applies to respecting others rights that you share. Private Property ownership is a precious right that I will not disrespect in any form or fashion.
I have a 30.06 sign on the entrance of my propert. It is also followed by a sign that states " No Open Carry Of Firearms will be prosecuted on this property"..
If I tell you I dont want you on my property because you ideas are libtarded, then you better GTFO..

 

[APatriot]

All of that crap you just spouted off applies to respecting others rights that you share. Private Property ownership is a precious right that I will not disrespect in any form or fashion.
I have a 30.06 sign on the entrance of my propert. It is also followed by a sign that states " No Open Carry Of Firearms will be prosecuted on this property"..
If I tell you I dont want you on my property because you ideas are libtarded, then you better GTFO..

I am just asking questions for discussion. I have yet to state my position. Obviously you think you know what my position is. You are really astute my friend. You make it easy for me

 

[jordanmills]

30.06 on private property is completely fine. You dont have to go there. I respect private property owners wishes and would never agree to any law that tells them otherwise.
30.06 on public property, thats just another infringement.

The "don't have to go there" excuse is a sham, the same thing used by the DHS to infringe on our fourth amendment rights in airports. Never use it.

The proper answer is that a person's right to private property (specifically embodied by their right to prevent trespass) trumps a third party's rights as recognized by the second amendment. Additionally, the constitution limits only the actions of the federal government (and by extension, subordinate governments), not the actions or rights of persons. I personally dislike it (It's Texas, dammit, I should be able to carry a gun where and when I want), but that is the state of things.

 

[Renegade]

30.06 is certainly a restriction, especially since it carries a criminal penalty with it for violation. Whether it is unconstititionnal or not, is finally determined by 9 people, and there opinion can vary depending upon who the 9 are at any given moment.

Keep in mind also the 2a now officially applies to the states.

 

[txinvestigator]

The "don't have to go there" excuse is a sham, the same thing used by the DHS to infringe on our fourth amendment rights in airports. Never use it.

The proper answer is that a person's right to private property (specifically embodied by their right to prevent trespass) trumps a third party's rights as recognized by the second amendment

Actually, that has nothing to do with it. Your NEXT statement is the correct answer.

Additionally, the constitution limits only the actions of the federal government (and by extension, subordinate governments), not the actions or rights of persons. I personally dislike it (It's Texas, dammit, I should be able to carry a gun where and when I want), but that is the state of things.

 

[MR Redneck]

I am just asking questions for discussion. I have yet to state my position. Obviously you think you know what my position is. You are really astute my friend. You make it easy for me

Im glad I make it easy for ya. My ideas and thoughts are simple and really dont require a lot of debate.
Such as the 30.06 sign and my disclaimer sign I had. I dont want people that I dont know showing up around here hidding their guns from me. Be honest and let us see them. I dont even care if a person has a CHL on my property. If people want to carry gun around here thats fine, just dont hide them from me. When my cop buddies stop by, they dont hide their guns.
I see no reason to involve much thought at all when discussing the rights of people. We have 27 simple instructions that create the American way of life. Thats all I need.

 

[M. Sage]

Merely for purposes of discussion, and particularly for those who advocate not allowing OC is a restriction of the 2A, where does it say in the 2A that private property owners can restrict the right to bear arms on their property?

Of course. The 2A only applies to government, not private individuals. Just like the 1A only applies to government, but this being a privately-owned forum I can delete any and all of the content you generate here on a whim.

... where are you going with this line?

 

[M. Sage]

Actually the Bill of Rights does not address the government, but rather addresses those individual rights which can't be squandered by a centralized tyranny. That is Civics 101 which based on your comment you were absent during class.

He's using the definition "to direct one's attentions or speech" when he says addresses. Yes, the BoR addresses the Government.

 

[APatriot]

He's using the definition "to direct one's attentions or speech" when he says addresses. Yes, the BoR addresses the Government.

No. BOR addresses individual rights which can't be infringed by a centralized tyrannical government. Now, if that is what you mean by BOR addresses the Government as to individual rights which they (i.e., central government can't take away) then we are in essence saying the same thing. Good job.

 

[jordanmills]

Actually, that has nothing to do with it. Your NEXT statement is the correct answer.

You sure? I'm pretty sure any private owner of property can limit entrance by any means of discrimination they see fit, with the exception of protected classes in certain circumstances.

 

[matefrio]

From Wiki:
Traditional principles of property rights include:
1. control of the use of the property
2. the right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)
3. a right to transfer or sell the property
4. a right to exclude others from the property.

If the owner doesn't like you he can kick you off their land and if you come back or won't leave it's trespass. So, Yes they can dictate who, what where and why you are on THEIR land, home, apartment etc, and I'll include place of business where they are the owner.

 

[txinvestigator]

You sure? I'm pretty sure any private owner of property can limit entrance by any means of discrimination they see fit, with the exception of protected classes in certain circumstances.

Yes they can limit entrance except for protected classes. However, they don't trump the 2nd because the 2nd only appplies to the .gov.