If you are walking around in public there is no reason you shouldn't have all of your God-given rights. The ex-drug dealer/snitch is just as likely (if not more) to need self-defense.

Agreed.

After one's constitutional due process has taken it's course, and one has paid one's debt to society according to the law, all rights are restored.

Including 2A rights, and the right to vote.
But you don't get either while you're still in jail.

Sultan.

Of course not. My suggestion: that places that want to ban guns be required to provide lock boxes is no infringement on the property owner. If they want to disallow guns, they should be willing to make a reasonable concession to insure the safety of those guns while they are being disallowed.

That, and the courtroom provision were included because I believe that all citizens should have equal rights. Where police officers are required to lock box their guns, their fellow citizens should too. No lock box = no restriction on carry, cop or not.

Right now we carry past "bans guns" signs all the time, in part because we are unwilling to give up our essential liberties and leave our guns at home and we don't have a place better than the holster to store them while we are doing business. The lock box suggestion is only applicable to businesses and other places the public frequents. By no means does the homeowner need a lock box, as they can simply refuse entry to people bearing arms.

1911 fan brings up most of why I am okay with courtroom ban (provided lock boxes for all) additionally, while I am mentally stable and law abiding. . . the courtroom is the one place where highly emmotional issues are debated and there is always one winner and one looser. No where else in society do the stakes run so high. No where else can you see the look of relief on the face of your child's rapist when he is aquitted on a technicality because some cop messed up his paperwork. No where else does a cheating wife get awarded 80% of the assets and 20% of the debts while the faithful husband walks with 80% of the debt and 20% of the assets. It is just too fertile ground for 2nd degree murders, at least make these poor souls premeditate before they commit their desperate, violent acts.

I respectfully disagree 100%.

If you want to visit their establishment/property then you should make the "reasonable concession" of disarming if the owner asks you to do so. Or go somewhere else.

(For the record I think the MN carry law has this portion 100% correct.)

Sure it is. The property owner has two options:
(a) spend money to provide the lock boxes: a cost required to exercise your right to ban...an infringement on the right to ban
(b) not get the right to ban guns
If they don't want "your kind," why should they be forced to spend money to accommodate you? Can't they just simply say don't come in here with that thing and leave it up to you to decide how to handle it?

If you, hypothetically, don't want service personnel carrying when they come to your house, do you want to have to provide them a lock box to come it?

Futher, should private property owners provide somewhere to kennel your dog out front too?

+1

We all ready have laws that felons are not to carry also laws for criminals who carry while commiting crimes etc.

I've never been to Vermont but it sounds like the right idea and no money to the goverment is a plus

Well, okay, I'll admit the lock box suggestion was a little tongue and cheek.

I don't believe people opperating a business which is open to the public have any more business restricting people from carrying guns on their person than they have to ban people from carrying pens with blue ink. If they aren't shooting up the joint or writing graffiti on your property, what is it to ya what they have in their pockets? So I took what was a good idea in the courtroom context and pushed it out into the rediculous. What would a sports complex have to look like to be able to lock box enough people's guns to make banning worthwhile? I also kind of wanted to run through the thought experiment of "what if the burden of accomodating" was on the antigun folk rather than on us carry folk? You know, like as though it was a right as opposed to a privilage to bear arms in this country.

Hmm. What would I want?

Dismantlement of the burdensome and pointless system of tracking guns from point of manufacture to retail purchase. Main net effect of this as I see it is to make stolen guns more valuable than legitimately owned guns. Has it solved some crimes? Perhaps, not worth it considering the effort and the lost liberty.

I like the MN carry law except for a few relatively narrow problem areas. For example I do not see how restricting licensed carry in schools by vetted adults serves any genuine public purpose. Rather it is a disruption and safety problem for those individuals who have made a decision to carry continuously. We don't have a contiguous culture of unlimited carry, so I see the training requirements as a good thing as it cuts down on the count of armed fools. The Vermont and Alaska laws work in those jurisdictions, but I don't think they're right for Minnesota. Which is why we have states.

Otherwise, I think there are some problems of fairness for people with prior convictions which are either old, irrelevant, false, or some combination of these. The legal system is not flawless, but this is hardly unique to firearms purchase and carriage.

The problem only comes because the "this establishment bans guns" signs have the force of law while a sign that "this establishment bans pets other than seeing eye dogs" does not. Places that want to ban pets are of course free to do so and may use existing trespass law to eject individuals found to be out of compliance. But unlike the situation with armament, the pet owner cannot be prosecuted for trespass until after being told to leave and refusing.

But that is the case with the current gun law in MN. 624.714 Subd. 17. Posting; trespass. (a) A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person or clothes under a permit or otherwise who remains at a private establishment knowing that the operator of the establishment or its agent has made a reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person who fails to leave when so requested is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

People in America have a right to guns. If you want to own a public accomodation in America you should have to accept all Americans. Screw these "private property" rights to exclude folks you don't agree with, I think.

As a future lawyer I'm fine with guns being banned from courtrooms for reasons that should be obvious. (one side always loses)

Lock boxes with appropriate security and metal detectors would be great.

Sultan,
I am late in responding to your rebuttal, There are lots of people who are on the inadmissible list who are not in prison or confined to a facility for the mentally ill. I, for the most part agree that for some, lets say, people with a history of unwillingness to continue to take their medications, who while able to function when medicated, have shown a propensity to leave their meds and become irrational, erratic, and at times dangerous to other. Likewise, many fish and game violators loose their rights to firearms as part of a non incarceration sentence. Likewise, abusive partners. Just because you are on the street does not mean you still have all your rights, or that you are reliable enough to be trusted with a weapon. I DO believe that this must only come as a part of an adjudicated process, not simply a visit to the psych ward or a unhappy wife.



(I have a BIG issue with the lautenberg act or amendment where just getting a TRO rules you permanently ineligible with out a Court Hearing or Trial.)

I think there should be some way for Former felons to work back their rights, but I think part of the concept of a felony, is to have ongoing reductions in rights as parts of the deterrent aspect of the category.

In someways, I agree that a license from a state or County should allow you to operate as you wish, and in someways I think that a property owner should have rights as they see fit, but this opens doors on both sides of what is right and wrong.

Minnesota allows landlords to discriminate in very small and closely defined ways in very precise circumstance. For example, If you live in the building, and it has a small number of units, (IIRC under 4 total, 3 for rent,) you may discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexual preference, and gender. This was to prevent a duplex owner who was raising their children in some way, from having to "expose" their children who were living in the building to "offensive" ways of life as well as giving people who were letting out a basement apartment the ability to say no just because they did not want someone lutheran, or jewish or quaker in their "home". SO Property rights can be respected in some instances, and perhaps business's could be regulated on the same style of guidelines. EG, a mom and pop store, with 3 employees or less, doing business with an attached home could mandatorily prohibit guns with no need to supply storage or alternate means. Likewise, the law could be written that any company with space open to the public, with more than 5 employee's or any place with multiple storefronts, etc, could NOT be allowed to prohibit.


Just saying there are places where I can respect anothers wish not to have weapons present, but that wish must be tempered with a realistic understanding that by growing a business, after a while you lose your ability to make those restrictions stick

Why do we need a carry law?

Just get rid of all of the laws that prohibit carrying a firearm. Heck while we are at it get rid of National Firearms Act (1934) and Gun Control Act (1968) and I want a pony.

Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean some dude on the street can't get a gun if he wants. So why limit the rights of the hypothetical guy that has turned his life around and needs a weapon for self defense.
(I am for the right of felons to own guns, but I am not very rocksteady on that opinion.)

(I hope I didn't chop up your opinion too greatly there.)
I don't think a person's private property rights should be limited when they become "too rich," nor do I think the private property rights of a business should be limited when they become "too succesful."

No one is forced to view a movie at AMC or buy their groceries at Cub, therefore AMC or Cub cannot deprive anyone of any rights. However if the Government imposes restrictions on what AMC and Cub can or cannot do, then their rights are being deprived.