Most cities do not allow the discharge of a weapon within their limits. I have seen people get arrested for "negligent" discharge.
My city doesn't allow discharge of firearms, either, which seems reasonable to me. A person firing a gun in self-defense of their person in their own home is not prohibited. Since the primary purpose of firearms, traditionally, and repeatedly told to us by the NRA, is for hunting. I don't think most citizens of most cities care to have people discharging firearms in crowded areas where more likely one will find humans rather than deer. Most citizens do not want firing ranges within their city boundaries, either, at least outdoor firing ranges -- all kinds of things can go wrong.
Of course, if you think the primary purpose of owning firearms is not for hunting animals to eat, then for what reason would you like to discharge your firearm within the city limits?
You can't carry your gun with you into federal buildings.
And neither can you carry knives, pepper spray or other personal defense/offense items like billy clubs or baseball bats, nor can you bring in your pets unless they are service animals trained to provide you assistance due to some disability. I think that means that the people who run the federal government want decorum and not chaos. Maybe they don't want accidents like bullets flying through the air or piles of feces on the floor.
You can't carry your gun with you into a bar.
Nor can you carry your open containers of legal beverages with you while you drive your car. I think the two equate to general safety for all concerned rather than being an affront to your desire to protect yourself in a bar from other patrons who may be armed drunks with two left hands and personal vendettas.
You can't just up and drive cross country with a gun in your car...etc. etc. etc. There are certain rules and regulations which go along with RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
There are plenty of people who operate vehicles which are not registered, tags expired, no insurance, bad emission control standards, faulty equipment...etc. etc. etc.
And, as you point out, there are various rules and regulations regarding the responsible ownership and operation of a motor vehicle. I am unaware of massive numbers of people driving unregistered cars with no insurance. Certainly, some exist, but at least where I live the state puts a lot of teeth into the enforcement of the rules and regulations for vehicle ownership and operation. For example, the fines for a tagged vehicle that doesn't have insurance for a 30-day period are:Maryland $150
, Virginia $500
, New York ($240)
, Texas ($350) (can't provide link because of assholishness of forum software), etc.
Don't want to pay the fine? That's okay. If you try to renew your registration/tags or your driver's license, you won't be able to. In fact, if you got pissed off with New York, didn't pay the $240 fine and fled to Alaska where True Liberties on The American FrontierTM
exist, Alaska will refuse your attempt to get a driver's license (or renew an existing Alaska license that they gave you previously without knowing the skinny) when they look into the national driver database and see that New York has put the squeeze on your identity. Even 5 years later, you will likely have to trek back from Alaska to New York to settle up in motor court not only the fine that you failed to pay, but the fine for failing to pay the fine.
Do you see a lot of people driving cars without license plates? That's illegal and can result in a fine, suspension of privileges or confiscation of the motor vehicle. Don't like how your state is not enforcing it? That's a different matter entirely. Where I live, you won't get far down the road without a license plate on your car, and if you fail to meet the qualifications for renewal of your license plates the state police will be on the lookout for your vehicle and they will personally unscrew the plates to your car and take them back to headquarters.
Oh, did you go to college at Penn State and get caught by the police with an open container of legal beverage on the street once? Twice? Or did the police catch you at 19 drinking legal beverages at a party in an apartment because the noise got too loud and they came to calm down the party? Tsk, tsk. For up to 4 years You've Got a Friend in PennsylvaniaTM
. Her name is Helen and she holds her finger on the computer button that marked you as ineligible for a driver's license -- even if you are not a Pennsylvania resident. You will be trying to schmooze Helen to get her to take that mark off your record, but trust me, Helen is a tough ole bird who disses you as being an irresponsible teenager, even when you are now 22!
Where are the fines for failure to register a firearm?
Where are the fines for failure to maintain the firearm?
Where are the fines for failure to restrict access to firearms to people without the license to use them?
Where are the fines for failure to periodically demonstrate competent use?
Where are the fines for failure to inform the state of medical incompetency?
Oh, yeah, that's right. I forgot! There are no requirements for any of the above.
Do you have poor vision, poor motor skills, experience seizures or memory loss?
Driving is a privilege. Not a right.
Ask the local judge who just sentenced you for a felony if he thinks your ownership or use of a gun is a right or a privilege.
If the ownership and use of a gun is a personal right that shall not be infringed, then we should allow any inmate in a prison to have a gun if he/she wants one. Either limits can be placed on the right to do something or not.
Driving is a privilege. Not a right. Should someone with poor vision, poor motor skills, experience seizures or memory loss be restricted from voting? Should their right to privacy be revoked as well? Should someone who experiences seizures not be allowed to have an abortion?
You seem to be driving your car off the road and into a corn field.
I didn't compare the ownership or operation of a gun (or a vehicle) to that of voting, privacy or abortion.
But if you want to examine these things, okay ... the vote of an 88yo woman in a nursing home who has dementia can be contested. She likely didn't show up at the precinct on her own and filed by absentee ballot. Nobody but she can legally handle her ballot, and trust me, by the time she acts on her own to handle her ballot she will likely have written on it an order for eggs benedict for her breakfast, or some incomprehensible scribble. At that point, her ballot will not be honored for failure to follow directions. So, yeah, someone who has memory loss eventually becomes ineligible to vote.
right to privacy be revoked? Somebody with seizures or memory loss? I really don't get this question. With regard to the ownership and operation of a vehicle, the patient's physician is required to report any medical condition that would make it unlikely that the patient could safely operate a vehicle. That information goes to the state agency and stays there. Is that a violation of privacy? /shrugs/ Is your divorce filing private? No. Is your receipt of a driving violation private? No. Is the foreclosure on your home private? No. These are all public records in the state of Maryland, you can browse them here:http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/
The difference being Rights vs. Privileges. Rights should be treated equally across the land. If you are eligible to exercise your rights in Tennessee you should be able to exercise those same rights in California and everywhere in between.
As shown in my previous responses, there have always been restrictions for the ownership and use of guns mostly because we agree that said ownership and use should be deemed responsible and not an absolute. Ergo, states can enact appropriate restrictions, just like they do for driving a vehicle. But again, the number of laws and regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm are quite sparse compared to the ownership and use of motor vehicles.
Is driving a First Amendment right? Is drinking alcohol a First Amendment right? Is yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater a First Amendment right? According to the courts, no. Aren't they examples of restrictions on the freedom of expression? Yes.
Responsible car owners and responsible gun owners are on the same par. It is 100% possible to purchase a vehicle without notifying the government of anything.
No, it is not possible. Even if you show up with a flatbed tow to snag that new car off the lot or that antique vehicle out of grandma's garage, you STILL have to notify the state that you purchased the car. What if you don't? All kinds of hell can descend upon you, but most importantly you have no proof that you are the owner of the vehicle. Oh, you have the previous title signed on the back and you have a bill of sale specifying that car was sold to you and the signatures are notarized? Great! You better report the sale to the state within 30 days or risk getting fined or confiscation of the vehicle.
All VIN numbers are registered somewhere
Just like it is 100% possible to purchase a gun without notifying the government of anything. Where you take your chances is in how and where you choose to use the items you have purchased.
At least we agree on that.
... You can trace a list of all owners for a particular vehicle but you cannot trace all owners of a firearm.
I got nothing.
See, that's what I mean. This is why I asked the context of your assertion that firearms are more regulated than the vehicles and drivers. Firearms have nowhere near the amount of regulation as the privilege of driving.
Please explain to me the context of your assertion that vehicle ownership and operation is less prohibitive than the ownership and operation of firearms.
On a federal level....drivers licenses are issued by the state in which you live in. Yet, They are accepted in all states as long as your licence is current and valid.
Guns. Not so much. Gotta get special permission to carry them through certain states, even when you are just driving through.
Not to beat the horse again, but my daughter went through far more steps to achieve her drivers license than she would have to complete to purchase a firearm, or perhaps at 17, for me to legally gift one to her. There are no regulations whatsoever.
So, perhaps your freedom to drive is by virtue of the extraordinary regulations that exist almost equally in all states. The very thing the NRA despises -- national databases -- are the fuel for driving your car from New York to California.
There are definitely laws concerning the use of firearms in every single state of the union.
I never said there weren't any laws at all.
There may not be enough laws (in your opinion) about owning them ...Correct
... but you cannot legally carry one or fire one anytime or anywhere you please.
And neither can you own or operate a motor vehicle at anytime and anywhere you please.
You can't just use them however you see fit.
Same for cars.
However, I think you would have to agree at this point that the regulations for cars and drivers are far more extensive than for guns and gun owners.
Owning and using are two different things. Owning and driving are two different things. I can own one clump of metal which requires a license to operate and as long as I have the license and insurance and registration, I can use that clump of metal in all the states without getting extra special permission. However, if I just keep it in my garage and never drive it, I need no license or registration if I never use it.
Incorrect. All vehicles require titling and registration -- you may not have to purchase plates for them, but you do have to tell the state you have them. Just try selling your car without a title --- a title that the state gives you --- the buyer will be reluctant to recognize that you have valid ownership, mainly because you never notified the state agency of your ownership and you lack valid documents.
The other clump of metal, I do not have to have a license but if I happen to have it on my possession in the wrong place without proper authority, I become a convicted felon...whether I have used it or not.
One is a protected right guaranteed by my constitution...the other isn't.
As we have discussed, your right
is not guaranteed
. It is not unconditional
. Just ask any inmate in a prison. An inmate who never owned or used a gun -- one who simply got caught selling pot on three occasions and ended up in prison for life. No firearm for Mr High.
Is your freedom to travel unconditional? Nope. Try leaving the United States without a passport -- you won't get far. If you manage to enter another country, try returning to the US without a passport and see what kind of hassle you encounter. Citizens have been denied reentry into the US for many months or years even when they have valid birth certificates in hand. Is the freedom to roam not a right, as well?
So, in summary, the regulations for use of vehicles are greater than those of firearms. But, you don't like that circumstance because you think you have a Second Amendment right to go anywhere, unconditionally
, with your firearm, concealed or not? Why not just say that instead of debating about the greater amount of regulations for firearms that just don't exist?
I would much rather debate on what the Second Amendment really means rather than adhering to out-of-date, out-of-sync Supreme Court decisions that make firearms more available to citizens than fireworks or health insurance.