Interesting rules on another site im on

You know, Florida is growing like the the Nashville area. Anybody who has any skills can come here and start a business and really make a great career for themselves in a short time. Although, housing can be tough. My house has doubled in value since I bought it four years ago.

 

The second amendment should be all the concealed carry permit anyone requires.

Kentucky was an open carry state ever since I could carry a weapon. I once walked a cash bag full of $100 bills to the bank with a snub-nosed S&W on my hip. Nobody in the bank freaked out either.

I have had a concealed permit for over 20 years. Never had to unholster it in need yet. But the pissed off guy that came to my truck and beat on the side window had me thinking about it.

 

Yes! Glad to see that we are now past the half way point to getting back to having our 2nd amendment rights which should NEVER have been removed in the 1st place!
Lots of guns, but no Harleys....No offense to those guys that have them, but my bikes go real fast & don't leak oil on the floor!

God Bless
Bill
https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum...ar-transport-hauling-open-or-enclosed.614419/

 

I am not anti-gun, but I respectfully disagree with you on this topic, Jason. I am opposed to permitless carry because it takes a valuable tool away from the police. Prior to the new law, if a police officer thought that he/she saw the outline of a gun on a purse or jacket, he/she would have probable cause to stop the person and ask to see a permit and some ID. The officer could then request wants and warrants by radio. Now the probable cause to stop and request to see a permit and ID are gone. I don't see a murder epidemic in Florida's immediate future, but I will guarantee you that there will be a few more bad dudes carrying.
For the record, I will repeat that I am not anti-gun, and I may or may not own one or more, but if the authors of the bill of rights had been able to see what firearms would be available two hundred years later, the second amendment would look very different then it does. They were thinking muzzle-loaders.

 

Should we limit the First Amendment to hand crank printing presses and yelling from the back of a wagon?
Patrick

 

The first amendment is only about what the government can do with regards to freedom of speech (among a few other things). Not sure what that has to do with a hand crank printing press.

 

The second amendment is the only one of the first ten to refer to ownership of something that is technology sensitive. I agree with Walter, I don't see what the first amendment has to do with yelling or hand crank printing presses.

 

Carrying a firearm IS a crime for some people.

 

In reality, an officer can "make up" a reason to pull you over. You were "driving erratically", your license plate illumination is out, etc.

I agree with you. There should be a legit reason. That is both logical and the letter of the law.

 

^^^^ "some people" should obviously know better!!! That is why some of us "Carry" and the actions of those with a mental or social deficits should not dictate/ influence the rules for the rest of the population.

 

Many who wish to limit 2A use the argument that ‘our founders never imagined ‘assault rifles’ or ‘machine guns’ or (insert scary words and pictures).’ These people are often staunch 1A defenders and expect 1A to apply to all facets of ‘speech’-television, radio and the internet, despite our founders’ never imagining a handheld smartphone. If we use their logic against 2A, then you HAVE to apply the same logic to 1A and declare that it should only apply to the methods available then. Hand cranked presses and yelling through a cone megaphone on a raised platform were what they envisioned, so would 1A look different had they forseen the future, too?
Patrick

 

I’m not saying that, but if a person uses the ‘never imagined high capacity killing machines’ argument to restrict, void or dismiss 2A, then he better be submitting his argument written by quill pen on parchment, via horse delivered mail or yelling from a wagon in the town square. Otherwise he’d be an illogical hypocrite.
Patrick

 

I'm curious if American Police services use seasonal roadside DUI checks looking for drunk drivers? Some people can be legally impaired, yet display no erratic driving behavior. If so, how would the 4th Amendment apply?

We have those in Canada. They'll occasionally set them up at on or off ramps on what passes for limited access highways. Perfectly legal under our laws.

 

We have those and I think they violate 4A (as do searches by drug dog and infrared camera) but they haven’t been challenged lately.
Patrick

 

I guess I read the 2nd differently. It says.... 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

To me, that means that if the country needs to defend itself, the population will have arms and can be conscripted into a militia to protect the country. I don't agree that the 2nd means we are defending ourselves against our own government.
Now the SCOTUS has defined it as a personal right to own weapons. Ok, still doesn't have anything to do with a militia to defend our country.
I know few will agree with this, but it's my opinion.