I'm always amazed at the tangents some threads take.

I wasn't going to get into this, because I'm a die-hard "people should be able to carry anytime, anywhere" kind of Life-Member NRA guy... but, I'll throw this in for consideration.

While in Iraq, I worked for a major command... actually, "the" major command in charge of supporting the warfighter. I worked in the G3 (operations). Part of my job was to process ALL the serious incident reports (SIRs) that came in. A good third of these, at least, were negligent discharges. (Note: We don't have accidental discharges. Soldiers have been trained with their weapons. Therefore, if they go off at inappropriate times, they are negligent discharges. Look -- I don't want to argue, I'm just telling you how it was handled. I'm just a major, which is "nothing" in a large room full of lieutenant colonels, colonels, and a general. This was the guidance, this was the policy.) Anyway... the majority of negligent discharges came when loading and clearing weapons. We nicknamed one of our nontactical vehicles (NTVs) "bullet" after one of our LTCs pumped a 9mm round through the passenger door when loading his M9. Most of these incidents, as I said, occured when loading and clearing, at designated locations for same. Many, many, many, MANY, MANY, "MANY" soldiers -- "people?" -- are NOT comfortable (read, "confidently proficient") with their firearms. I was SCARED TO DEATH many times, at clearing barrels, watching PVT Snuffy or LTC Moron clear his M240, M9, or M16. People CONSTANTLY got the clearing procedure screwed up... usually, "charge weapon, drop magazine, pull trigger." What I'm saying is, and my reason for posting this "war story," is that while I am SO comfortable with ANY type of firearm... there are many people who are not. I grew up with guns. I have all types of rifles, handguns, and shotguns in my possession and I work with them all the time. This, in addition to military hardware. It's just something I'm comfortable with. It's not a big deal to me: muzzle control (i.e., safe direction), load, unload, disassemble, assemble... understand HOW the thing works before fooling with it... but to many people, they (guns) are technical marvels far beyond their comprehension. They don't know how they work. They don't know a firing pin from a sear.

Now, the hardliner stance is to say "Well, by golly, these people (soldiers) need to be EXPERTS with their firearms (at least handling, if not qualifying), but that's never, ever, going to happen. Some people are good at computers, some aren't. Some people can make a good-looking quilt, some can't. Some people can cook, some can't. Some people can handle firearms safely and with proficiency, some can't. Forcing things down their throats that they just aren't physically or mentally capable of dealing with isn't the way to fix their deficiencies.

Just food for thought.

Russ

Russell:

I think the distinction between a negligent and accidental discharge is an important one. I like that.

Paul

Hi, Paul



Actually, it does not ring true to me.



That is partly because the federal government tries to apply its rulings in a blanket fashion, to everyone, everywhere, without the exercise of discretion. That is nether logical nor just to my way of thinking.



More important legally - Government, as you and I both probably understand, does not in reality own ANY property. It holds some in trust, for you and me.



Therefore, as it owns no property privately, it cannot legally assert the rights of private property owners and, In fact, has no such private property rights. That is why the 2nd Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law (affecting the bearing of firearms)........."



ANY argument by government in favor of or respecting U.S. federal regulation of firearms is void (not "null", which means "debatable" according to my dictionary) following the ratification of the US Constitution and its 2nd Amendment.



What they are arguing is that the "Police Power" which entitles them in law to act on behalf of the greater good, carries that authority over into the realm of federal regulation of firearms. In fact, that is NOT so...that is why the Second Amendment exists, to explicitly specify that the Police Power does NOT extend to the regulation of firearms...or any other "arms", presumably including swords, switchblade knives, pipe-bombs, etc., if strictly read.



The individual is not arguing that you can't carry on his property because of danger to the public...he is arguing that you can't carry on his premises because he doesn't WANT you to carry there.



Why he doesn't want you to carry on his property is irrelevent. The simple fact that it is his private property and he doesn't want you to carry there is sufficient to bar your carrying there in the eyes of the law.



It may also be true that the reason he personally doesn't want you to carry on his property is a safety concern on his part, but that is not what justifies his decision (and enforcement of that decision) in law. He need have/give no reason at all.



Best wishes,



Alberta Canuck.

You guys are killing me. Ending my tour in Deutschland, looking forward to catching some gun shows, which don't exist here. Now I find out that they suck these days. I guess I won't waste my time there. Thanks for the heads up.