Comments on: Gun Laws: Who’s Afraid of Paul Helmke?

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:15:20 +0000

Let's hope Helmke never returns to a public office.

By: Andy Horning

Andy Horning — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:47:28 +0000

There's nothing right about this law. Read it. First of all, it'll get ripped up in court, and employers will find other ways to fire/punish people anyway. Second, there was never any law that allowed politicians to take guns…they operate in violation of law. Third, it is shortsighted and plain stupid to pit one right against another. Either you have a right or you don't. And since we've dismissed the constitutions, you, frankly, have no rights at all. There's no longer anything to keep politicians from doing whatever the heck they want because you have allowed an infinite number of contradictory legal-ish words to make the only leash on governing power in this country (constitutions) irrelevant to everybody.
I don't blame our ideological enemies for this. I blame foolish friends who refuse to accept the authority of our state and federal constitutions, and instead play the games of those who mean us harm.

By: timzank

timzank — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:24:29 +0000

Gee, what we REALLY need is a few more lawyers to help finetune the micromanagement of our lives even more.

Anybody know what you call a "gun free zone"?

A target.

By: Derek Balling

Derek Balling — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:47:49 +0000

Craig: private property rights have LONG trumped civil rights, since the first days of the Republic. For example, private property owners can happily tell people "you cannot use my property/land to exercise your right to protest, you have to go out there on the sidewalk on the public property to do so". Likewise, property owners very much do have the right to tell you "you don't get to have a gun on my property".

So the predicate of the law is sound. Private property owners DO have this right today, and most would argue SHOULD have this right. If you don't want to use their property in accordance with their wishes, you are free to NOT use their private property. (Or do you think that I can just march onto your front lawn, plant a Pro-Obama sign on your property and tell you that "my first amendment right to protected speech" trumps your property rights?")

This law is a reasonable balance between a property-owner's rights, to determine what is and is not allowed on their private property, and the gun-owner's right to feel safe getting to and from the property-owner's property.

By: Craig Ladwig

Craig Ladwig — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:13:50 +0000

You may have read over " as long as it doesn't impinge upon another citizen's rights."

By: Derek Balling

Derek Balling — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:50:26 +0000

I'm confused…. your right to have a firearm DOESN'T ordinarily apply on someone else's private property (as the 'supreme authority' so to speak on that private property, they have — right now at least — the right to tell you that you cannot bring a firearm onto their property).

It seems to me, if I'm reading what you're quoting, that this law says that private property owners are losing that right to prevent guns from coming onto their property in visitors' vehicles. (The theory being, I guess, that while the gun-owner is in the car with the gun, they have the gun to protect them, but as soon as they get out of the car on someone else's private property, they have to leave the gun, locked up, behind)

This SOUNDS like it was designed to close the gap of "I own a gun and want to have it to protect myself getting back and forth to work, but my employer prohibits guns, and so I can't even have it locked up in my car waiting for me while I work."

Now, under existing law, if you have a gun, on SOMEONE ELSE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, in violation of that person's wishes, then — technically speaking — it probably becomes criminal trespass (you're there in a manner not in accordance with the manner proscribed by the property owner). Since the criminal trespass "involves" a firearm, that would, very plainly, allow for the confiscation of the weapon "involved".

What this law is saying "that's horseshit, the gun's locked up outside in the car, so you can't bust someone for that", which would then eliminate the criminal trespass, which would then eliminate the confiscation.

So I guess I'm just saying — why are you upset about this?