Whatever the NRA wants the NRA gets

[RSillsbee]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/29/2380902/whatever-nra-wants-it-gets.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz1WXzQW5mv

That might be pushing it a little


By Fred Grimm
[e-mail]
You might not have figured sleepy little Groveland, Fla., to be a hotbed of pointy-headed-liberal anti-gun predilections, with local laws restricting patriotic Americans’ God-given right to pack heat anywhere and anyhow they the damn well see fit.

The city, with about 7,000 residents, just kind of pops out of the citrus groves up in Lake County, fairly oozing with small-town conservative American values. But back in January 2010, the Groveland city council trampled all over the Second Amendment, passing a city ordinance that outlawed celebratory gunshots into the heavens. The council wanted to make city law compatible with the law of gravity. "What goes up, comes down," police Capt. Eddie McConnell told the council, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

Interestingly the comments section reads like a thread here


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/29/2380902/whatever-nra-wants-it-gets.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz1WYttJB2W

[TheWraith]

1. Talk about absurd and loaded with strawmen.

The author of the piece might as well just come out and accuse anyone who owns a gun of being a psycho murderer who doesn't care if they're killing babies. But hey, no, blame the NRA because the town violated state laws. I'm sure also it's perfectly fine with him if other towns make their own laws contrary to the state's, like banning bicycles, or eliminating the right to a speedy trial.

[Hoyt]

2. Agree, not every gunner. But, there is a significant percentage who are threats with their guns.

[pipoman]

5. What is a significant percentage?

I'm not asking for am actual statistic, just asking what "significant percentage" means to you?

[ileus]

7. 100% of the two gunner toters with special loads.

[Hoyt]

8. Prefer to see percentage you consider OK in the "shouldn't be within 100 yards of a gun" group.

[pipoman]

9. I'm not the one making the claim, you are

if you say a ridiculously low number, you look silly and if you choose something close to the truth, the percentage is actually relatively low in fact, so which is it? Are you going to apply the same percentage to all dangerous consumer goods?

[Hoyt]

11. Mine is lower than yours, I'm sure. Not one who believes it's OK to have a lot of marginal toters

so rest of you can continue a bad habit.

[Remmah2]

13. Like the ATF. nt

nt

[Atypical Liberal]

3. That's why I'm a member. We organize to get our way. n/t

[-..__...]

10. And we do it with Great Success!!!

Brady peoples... not so much...

[digonswine]

4. How does their new law differ, except in specificity-

from the state law? "State law already prohibits the mindless discharge of firearms." Yeah--That's shooting in the air at nothing. I must be missing something. I can't believe that thinking people would think it's a good idea to be able to fire willy nilly in the air. Do I have the same right as a bow hunter-shooting arrows into the air?

[-..__...]

6. Talk about a "Drama Queen"...

I wonder what his DU user name is?

For his enlightenment... it's called "State Preemption laws", and there's a reason for it...

Firearms Preemption Laws


Anti-gun proposals at the federal level receive the most attention, but similar proposals and restrictive ordinances at the local level also threaten honest gun owners` rights and the fundamental American principle of equal protection under the law for all citizens. Local ordinances more restrictive than the laws of a state may also violate the "right to keep and bear arms" protections afforded by that state`s constitution, as well as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.1

The problem with local firearm ordinances is also one of sheer variety. Where no uniform state laws are in place, the result can be a complex patchwork of restrictions that change from one local jurisdiction to the next. But it is unreasonable to require citizens, whether residents of a given state or persons passing through or visiting a state, to memorize a myriad of laws. Where so many ordinances exist, citizens with no criminal intent are placed in jeopardy of running afoul of restrictions they don`t even know exist. This can affect hunters, target shooters and firearm collectors who travel through multiple jurisdictions on the way to hunting areas, shooting ranges, and exhibitions. Additionally, individuals who travel with firearms for personal protection are at risk of breaking the law simply by crossing from one municipality to another. If charged with a violation of an obscure local ordinance, the honest gun owner faces, at the very least, great expense and devotion of time to clearing his or her good name in court, and retrieving any firearms and other property confiscated by law enforcement officials.

To prevent the problems associated with restrictive local ordinances, 46 states have enacted "firearm preemption laws"--laws that prevent local jurisdictions from imposing ordinances more restrictive than laws passed by the state legislature and, in some cases, rescind local ordinances to ensure uniform firearm laws statewide.2

More info here... http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=48

[Union Scribe]

12. Not true. They wanted me to join their wine club.

I politely but firmly ignored their email.