Thread: Proposal to repeal an unconstitutional concealed-weapons ban

I stole this idea from an op-ed column, so I can't take full credit. The text, however, is mine.



As the result of a recent Senate decision, concealed weapons will no longer be banned from U.S. national parks. Second-amendment advocates and the NRA applauded the decision, on the grounds that it will make hikers and campers "safer" to be able to carry concealed weapons.



However, there is still federal land in which concealed weapons are still banned, and therefore, people in those places are at-risk. I'm talking, of course, about our nation's Capitol building. Every day, hundreds of our nation's leaders walk through the halls of the U.S. capitol every day, and the safety of our senators and representatives is being compromised by the fact that each day, they must walk through metal detectors to ensure that they are not exercising their second amendment rights. Study results routinely trumpeted by the NRA prove my point. People are safer when they are allowed to carry concealed weapons.



So, I propose that we save taxpayer money by removing the metal detectors, firing the security detail, and allowing our senators, representatives, interns, pages, ... even the Capitol custodial staff to carry weapons and make the Capitol a safer place.



Who here agrees with me? I'm looking more for the perspective of second-amendment advocates.

[quote name='Djinn' date='13 August 2009 - 09:33 AM' timestamp='1250174024' post='4512']

I stole this idea from an op-ed column, so I can't take full credit. The text, however, is mine.



As the result of a recent Senate decision, concealed weapons will no longer be banned from U.S. national parks. Second-amendment advocates and the NRA applauded the decision, on the grounds that it will make hikers and campers "safer" to be able to carry concealed weapons.



However, there is still federal land in which concealed weapons are still banned, and therefore, people in those places are at-risk. I'm talking, of course, about our nation's Capitol building. Every day, hundreds of our nation's leaders walk through the halls of the U.S. capitol every day, and the safety of our senators and representatives is being compromised by the fact that each day, they must walk through metal detectors to ensure that they are not exercising their second amendment rights. Study results routinely trumpeted by the NRA prove my point. People are safer when they are allowed to carry concealed weapons.



So, I propose that we save taxpayer money by removing the metal detectors, firing the security detail, and allowing our senators, representatives, interns, pages, ... even the Capitol custodial staff to carry weapons and make the Capitol a safer place.



Who here agrees with me? I'm looking more for the perspective of second-amendment advocates.

[/quote]



You'd invite every nut with a grudge against government to walk into the capitol and start shooting. It's happened before.

The United States Capitol shooting incident of 1998 was an attack on July 24, 1998 which led to the death of two United States Capitol Police officers. Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut were killed when Russell Eugene Weston Jr. entered the Capitol and opened fire.[1] Chestnut was killed instantly and Gibson died during surgery at George Washington University Hospital but not before wounding Weston, who survived. Weston's exact motives are unknown, but he does suffer from mental disorder and maintains a strong distrust of the federal government. He remains in a mental institution due to paranoid schizophrenia and has yet to be tried in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident_(1998)

Perhaps... But those nuts with grudges are already out there. And according to the NRA, a large percentage of those nuts would be deterred by knowing that many people in the building have concealed weapons. Therefore, they'd be safer than they are today.



Surely Senators Thune and Barrasso would be on board with this, right? As I recall, they're both staunch gun-rights advocates. Why wouldn't they feel safer in their own workplace, knowing that they and their colleagues are armed and protected?

[quote name='Djinn' date='13 August 2009 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1250175488' post='4519']

Perhaps... But those nuts with grudges are already out there.[/quote]



True, but the security precautions at the US Capitol deter them.



[quote name='Djinn' date='13 August 2009 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1250175488' post='4519'] And according to the NRA, a large percentage of those nuts would be deterred by knowing that many people in the building have concealed weapons. Therefore, they'd be safer than they are today.

[/quote]



The NRA bases that opinion on what information?



From past events, if someone is mentally deranged they're unlikely to be deterred from entering an unprotected government building and shooting until they're killed.

[quote name='Bourne' date='13 August 2009 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1250175831' post='4524']
True, but the security precautions at the US Capitol deter them.



The NRA bases that opinion on what information?

From past events, if someone is mentally deranged they're unlikely to be deterred from entering an unprotected government building and shooting until they're killed.
[/quote]




But the government building wouldn't be "unprotected." The people inside would be armed - if they choose to arm themselves. Consider the lunatic at Virginia Tech. He was mentally deranged in the clinical sense. And yet the NRA responded by advocating legislature that would allow students to carry concealed weapons on the campus, and in classrooms. I presume that their logic is that an armed student populace would have reduced the number of casualties in the attack.



So again - by the NRA's logic - why aren't we making our Capitol safer by permitting concealed weapons?

[quote name='Djinn' date='13 August 2009 - 10:25 AM' timestamp='1250177122' post='4541']






But the government building wouldn't be "unprotected." The people inside would be armed - if they choose to arm themselves. Consider the lunatic at Virginia Tech. He was mentally deranged in the clinical sense. And yet the NRA responded by advocating legislature that would allow students to carry concealed weapons on the campus, and in classrooms. I presume that their logic is that an armed student populace would have reduced the number of casualties in the attack.



So again - by the NRA's logic - why aren't we making our Capitol safer by permitting concealed weapons?

[/quote]



I don't think that inviting gunfights in the Capitol is very appealing to anyone other than the NRA.



Who says that the people inside would all be armed? They're making the assumption that everyone who works in the Capitol wants to carry a concealed firearm. How do they know that anyone would want to carry?



The NRA's logic is flawed and I would like a link to whatever source that they're using to support that position.

So it's safe to assume that we're all NOT in favor of allowing concealed weapons in public parks, college campuses, etc? I know there are some serious second-amendment advocates reading this thread. I'm hoping a few of them will have the cajones to post.

[quote name='Djinn' date='13 August 2009 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1250174024' post='4512']

I stole this idea from an op-ed column, so I can't take full credit. The text, however, is mine.



As the result of a recent Senate decision, concealed weapons will no longer be banned from U.S. national parks. Second-amendment advocates and the NRA applauded the decision, on the grounds that it will make hikers and campers "safer" to be able to carry concealed weapons.



However, there is still federal land in which concealed weapons are still banned, and therefore, people in those places are at-risk. I'm talking, of course, about our nation's Capitol building. Every day, hundreds of our nation's leaders walk through the halls of the U.S. capitol every day, and the safety of our senators and representatives is being compromised by the fact that each day, they must walk through metal detectors to ensure that they are not exercising their second amendment rights. Study results routinely trumpeted by the NRA prove my point. People are safer when they are allowed to carry concealed weapons.



So, I propose that we save taxpayer money by removing the metal detectors, firing the security detail, and allowing our senators, representatives, interns, pages, ... even the Capitol custodial staff to carry weapons and make the Capitol a safer place.



Who here agrees with me? I'm looking more for the perspective of second-amendment advocates.

[/quote]



I'm not sure I get how that works. Say you are going to Yosemite National Park. If the concealed weapon isn't legal in California, how to you get it to Yosemite without breaking the law?

Usually, California law forbids a person from carrying loaded guns on his or her person or in a motor vehicle while in a public place. California Penal Code §12025 clarifies the California laws regarding firearms.



A person is guilty of carrying a concealed weapon when he or she:

a) Carries a concealed weapon within any motor vehicle under his or her control or direction;

b ) Carries a concealed weapon upon his or her person; or

c) Carries a concealed weapon within any motor vehicle he or she occupies.

http://www.rizioandnelson.com/blog/i...eapons-laws-2/

[quote name='Blueneck' date='13 August 2009 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1250182297' post='4611']
I'm not sure I get how that works. Say you are going to Yosemite National Park. If the concealed weapon isn't legal in California, how to you get it to Yosemite without breaking the law?



http://www.rizioandn...weapons-laws-2/
[/quote]

State laws trump in this case. If California says "no guns," then it's "no guns in Californian national parks." Previously, concealed guns were prohibited in all national parks, regardless of state law.



http://thomas.loc.go...y/z?c111:S.816:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30832809/