Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've read the statute. And there is absolutely nothing in it that prohibits a local government body (like a county) from enacting ordinances about where firearms can be *discharged*. Here in SJC - outdoor shooting ranges are only allowed in areas zoned "commercial rural". Robyn
Of course I'm directing my post at you-that's why I included your quote. Again, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about where guns can or cannot be discharged and I understand perfectly well the "law of the land" concerning the firearm laws in Florida. You were justifying them by claiming getting rid of "patchwork" local laws makes sense as not to infringe on the gunners 2nd Amendment rights (which don't apply here). I was following your logic and using examples of how localities decide what is best and safest for their areas. Just because Columbia County (pop. density 85/sq. mile) thinks it's ok for residents to blast away in their backyard, St. Petersburg (pop. 3967/sq. mile) shouldn't be forced to.
Well, there's your mistake. My comments were: 1) that I didn't see the inconsistency in points of view that you claimed existed, and 2) that the state was the proper authority for legislating restrictions pertaining to gun use, purchase, etc. I didn't say anything about the 2nd amendment protecting the right to a backyard gun range. I don't believe it does and I didn't imply that it does. You said "You were justifying them by claiming getting rid of "patchwork" local laws makes sense as not to infringe on the gunners 2nd Amendment right" but you obviously missed my point. Getting rid of patchwork local laws is not about protecting 2nd amendment rights, it is about protecting the state constitution's integrity.
If it helps, I'll state my position again. The state reserves, thru the constitution and state law, the sole right to legislate gun laws, and local governments have now been out on notice that they don't have the right to usurp or ignore state law. That's the way it should be. If we, as a population, disagree with a state law, we use the political process to change it. We don't ignore it and we don't write our own local version.
You are trying to reason with a person who hates Florida. He would be a foe of anything the state does even if it protects the constitutional rights of the citizens. Thankfully we have a legislature that is more interested in adhering to the rights granted under the Constitution of the U.S. rather than kneeling to the wants of a the constituents of any local government's efforts to erode them.
I don't see the disconnect between the right to own a gun and local municipalities restricting where a person can build a shooting range. There should be minimal requirements as far as how populated the area is and what may be near a backyard. Should you be able to build shooting range in a densely populated area? Or next to a day care?
Again, see my previous comment that the guy in the article I linked has too have someone call "all clear" over a waterway. My right not to be shot by this idiot is just as important as his right to own his gun, but if he doesn't have to common sense to figure out where it is safe to shoot it, then I expect the government to step in!
The problem with the pro-gun set is they don't want any rules. The constitution does not say you can shot your gun anywhere you want.
The Full text reads: "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." It seems that most who argue the 2nds unimpeachable gun rights tend to leave the initial qualifier out of discussion. Let alone the sentiments and realities of the time period in which it was written.
If you are saying that the militia clause must be ignored in order to defend the second amendment, to paraphrase vaughanwilliams, I've heard that argument before and I don't buy it.
The argument is that a "well regulated militia" is an anachronism and therefore the rest of the statement no longer has legitimacy. The two arguments on the subject which, for me, seem to have merit are: 1) the founders clearly recognized that there is a natural right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms and that the right could not be changed, modified, or removed by the government. The amendment refers to a well regulated militia, not as a necessary condition of that right, but as an explanation for it. In other words, a well regulated militia may be necessary at times but the right to arms is not conditional upon it. I agree, though, they certainly could have done a better job of wording it.
The other argument looks at the historical context of the amendment in which there was a real and genuine concern that history can and does repeat itself and that the public must have the right to defend itself from a government run amuck. I don't think that should be quickly dismissed as nonsense in our current times. First, we have seen, and continue to see, examples all around the world of governments confiscating individual firearms before imposing their dictatorships and human rights abuses. It's easy for some to dismiss these concerns as the paranoid fears of whack jobs (and sometimes that's what it is) but that doesn't mean one should turn a blind eye to such things. The flip side of this is the argument that a bunch of folks with guns can't stop the might of a military takeover, if one should ever occur. Well, look at history and you will see that there are many examples of smaller guerrilla forces holding their own against large, organized armies. In fact, our own military has adapted these techniques to their own bag of tricks because it is effective.
I sincerely hope we never degenerate into such times but I have no doubt, after a lot of thought, that the above represents the true intent of the founders. That's not to say that I dismiss other points of view but I do dismiss the point of view that there is no constitutional right for individuals to own guns. I differ from the hardcore 2nd amendment people in that I think it is the responsibility of the state governments to require that all gun owners are well trained, emotionally stable, and that the public is safe. The question is how best to do that.
I've read the statute. And there is absolutely nothing in it that prohibits a local government body (like a county) from enacting ordinances about where firearms can be *discharged*. Here in SJC - outdoor shooting ranges are only allowed in areas zoned "commercial rural". Robyn
You need to read F.S. 790.333 and this article.....
I've read the statute. And there is absolutely nothing in it that prohibits a local government body (like a county) from enacting ordinances about where firearms can be *discharged*. Here in SJC - outdoor shooting ranges are only allowed in areas zoned "commercial rural". Robyn
From the way I understand it you can set up a range at your house anywhere in the state. I'm not sure if a HOA can restrict the activity though. Just hope you always have sane and respectful neighbors.
PREEMPTION.—Except as expressly provided by the State Constitution or general law, the Legislature hereby declares that it is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or any administrative regulations or rules adopted by local or state government relating thereto. Any such existing ordinances, rules, or regulations are hereby declared null and void.
Doesn't say anything about where you can shoot guns. So we we can shoot guns anywhere? Really? Like not only in our backyards - but in Publix - the Mayo Clinic - at Disney? Really people. GMAFB. You have a semi-literate legislature (which can't write totally coherent sentences most of the time) and one a hole politician who can't read read or write an English sentence trying to make a name for himself in some a hole local paper and you wind up with a thread that belongs in the POC forum.
I think just about anyone would have a hard time saying in court that this statute allows all people in Florida to shoot off guns everywhere (and - since there are no distinctions between your backyard and your local Publix - how do you think a court with judges who have IQs over 100 - we still have some here - would rule)? Robyn
You may feel it is ridiculous but did you read the article I put up a link on? It does happen and it is quite legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55
The statute states:
PREEMPTION.—Except as expressly provided by the State Constitution or general law, the Legislature hereby declares that it is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or any administrative regulations or rules adopted by local or state government relating thereto. Any such existing ordinances, rules, or regulations are hereby declared null and void.
Doesn't say anything about where you can shoot guns. So we we can shoot guns anywhere? Really? Like not only in our backyards - but in Publix - the Mayo Clinic - at Disney? Really people. GMAFB. You have a semi-literate legislature (which can't write totally coherent sentences most of the time) and one a hole politician who can't read read or write an English sentence trying to make a name for himself in some a hole local paper and you wind up with a thread that belongs in the POC forum.
I think just about anyone would have a hard time saying in court that this statute allows all people in Florida to shoot off guns everywhere (and - since there are no distinctions between your backyard and your local Publix - how do you think a court with judges who have IQs over 100 - we still have some here - would rule)? Robyn
Robyn55, I don't know where you got the idea that the law allows someone to shoot a gun anywhere but you are wrong, unless I misunderstood your meaning.
790.15 Discharging firearm in public or on residential property.—
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street, who knowingly discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises, or who recklessly or negligently discharges a firearm outdoors on any property used primarily as the site of a dwelling as defined in s. 776.013 or zoned exclusively for residential use commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Florida Forest Service.
(2) Any occupant of any vehicle who knowingly and willfully discharges any firearm from the vehicle within 1,000 feet of any person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
In fact, it is even illegal to possess a gun that is visible to someone else even if you have a permit to carry the gun (unless you are defending yourself, of course.)
If you are saying that the militia clause must be ignored in order to defend the second amendment, to paraphrase vaughanwilliams, I've heard that argument before and I don't buy it.
The argument is that a "well regulated militia" is an anachronism and therefore the rest of the statement no longer has legitimacy. The two arguments on the subject which, for me, seem to have merit are: 1) the founders clearly recognized that there is a natural right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms and that the right could not be changed, modified, or removed by the government. The amendment refers to a well regulated militia, not as a necessary condition of that right, but as an explanation for it. In other words, a well regulated militia may be necessary at times but the right to arms is not conditional upon it. I agree, though, they certainly could have done a better job of wording it.
The other argument looks at the historical context of the amendment in which there was a real and genuine concern that history can and does repeat itself and that the public must have the right to defend itself from a government run amuck. I don't think that should be quickly dismissed as nonsense in our current times. First, we have seen, and continue to see, examples all around the world of governments confiscating individual firearms before imposing their dictatorships and human rights abuses. It's easy for some to dismiss these concerns as the paranoid fears of whack jobs (and sometimes that's what it is) but that doesn't mean one should turn a blind eye to such things. The flip side of this is the argument that a bunch of folks with guns can't stop the might of a military takeover, if one should ever occur. Well, look at history and you will see that there are many examples of smaller guerrilla forces holding their own against large, organized armies. In fact, our own military has adapted these techniques to their own bag of tricks because it is effective.
I sincerely hope we never degenerate into such times but I have no doubt, after a lot of thought, that the above represents the true intent of the founders. That's not to say that I dismiss other points of view but I do dismiss the point of view that there is no constitutional right for individuals to own guns. I differ from the hardcore 2nd amendment people in that I think it is the responsibility of the state governments to require that all gun owners are well trained, emotionally stable, and that the public is safe. The question is how best to do that.
No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that context is important in any debate. I really have no strong opinions about gun ownership either way. I do know that what should be abundantly clear, is often muddled either innocently or by design. And of course, the remedy is often swayed by influence or ideology.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
