General

[WilD]

Originally Posted by Painthappy

That still must be a state law... In NH, I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to take a gun anywhere, except in a court house.

That's the only place NH has them prohibited in a blanket statement sense.

Well, I'm under the impression that on federal land, federal rules, so state laws become irrelevant. I certainly don't want to be a test case.

From the MI State Police website:

Under Federal law, firearms are also restricted in federal facilities. A federal facility means "a building or part thereof owned or leased by the federal government, where federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties." This includes facilities such as post offices and federal courts.

Does my valid Concealed Pistol License allow me to carry a concealed pistol in a state park?
Yes. MCL 324.504 states that the DNR cannot promulgate or enforce a rule that prohibits a ccw holder from carrying on property under the control of the DNR.

Federal rules currently prohibit firearms in National Parks, even if you posess a carry permit in the state in which the park resides. Here is a CNN article, the Feds are considering changing the law to bring parks into line with state laws. Behind the Scenes: Debating guns in national parks - CNN.com

[Painthappy]

So this is interesting too:

"In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. "

So that a state can not force you to have the gun unloaded and/or a trigger lock on the gun?

Am I reading that correctly? Posted here: SCOTUSblog Court: A constitutional right to a gun

So that tosses a lot of state laws into a tizzy then.... Mass, NY, etc, etc


Edit: WilD... Thank you... I did not know.

[WilD]

Originally Posted by Painthappy

Edit: WilD... Thank you... I did not know.

EXACTLY! See how confusing and irrational it is? I was going to take my .44 on a camping trip but found out that would potentially be illegal as much of the area is National (and happens to be full of bears). I did not know this until recently eirther, and it makes me somewhat angry. My buddy made me feel like an idiot when he informed I was not allowed to carry my gun out in the wilderness. At best, the rules are very unclear.

[Painthappy]

Ok.. last OT post on NH laws:

Frequently Asked Questions about NH Gun Laws | Pro-Gun New Hampshire

I see under the "Where can I and can I not carry..." section, there it explains it better, but that the federal "laws" are still untested and that you shouldn't be the test case.. lol...

Interesting. Learn stuff everyday.


ADD: Not finding much on the dissenting opinions and as to why other than it would just throw current laws into a tizzy.... Still looking.

[S7G]

In Alaska you can carry concealed or open to anywhere but a courthouse.

P-3

[Listessa]

Are you allowed to carry a gun in a National Park if it is unloaded with your ammo separately?

Considering one of the highways around here goes directly through a national park, many people stop on the side of the road and unload prior to traveling through that section of park, then stop after crossing the border and reload everything.

Granted, that doesn't help if the bear starts opening up your tent like a candy wrapper in the middle of the night.... At least it's some peace of mind.

ETA:
Dave, don't forget about "privately owned property" with sign-age prohibiting it. Like the Diamond Mall.

[Schmitti]

More on the post office:
Question about concealed carry in a Post Office Robert Louis Williamson’s Weblog

Carter... you really want to test that one out? I'm not Military nor Law enforcement...and I have no idea how incident to hunting works out

E

[Painthappy]

Dissenting Arguments:

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE
GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
The question presented by this case is not whether the
Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be
enforced by individuals. [ so are they agreeing or dissenting? ] But a conclusion that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us
anything about the scope of that right.
Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit
crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military
duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect
the right to use a gun to rob a bank; [ glad they cleared THAT up.. Phew... ] it is equally clear that
it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain
military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to
possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting
and personal self-defense is the question presented by
this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our
decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939),
provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the
right of the people of each of the several States to maintain
a well-regulated militia.

[ So that is their reasoning in a nut shell... ]

it goes on.. but I'll stop there. So they open up saying something about individual rights, hunting, etc... but then stop and say it's about having a militia, not individual rights. There's more, and you can read it here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...06/07-2901.pdf

Enjoy

[HP_Lovecraft]

Interesting.
I've read that exact quote while standing in line at the post-office.I THOUGHT it referred to non-government workers who needed a firearm, like my examples above (Bounty Hunters, Civilian Security, Body Guards, etc).

But the interpretation above does make it sound like any "lawful' person?

[Sir Brass]

Originally Posted by Schmitti

Hmmmm .... State Laws still trump federal laws if more strict, correct? Looks like this one won't do me any good in NY... or those folks living in NJ either.

E

State laws are struck down if the supreme court passes a ruling making the ban unconstitutional. Now, how the state chooses to regulate gun ownership is still up to them unless that is ruled unconstitutional. However, they no right to ban gun ownership outright.

This is a constitutional ruling, not a congressional law.

Though I do believe that federal law does trump state law if federal law outlaws the making or enforcing of certain laws.

Like, if congress passed a law saying handgun ownership was legal, a state could still rule them as illegal to own unless a constitutional ruling overrode that. However, if congress passed a law saying that it was illegal to outlaw gun ownership, then the states could not continue to enforce gun-ban laws without being in violation of federal law.

At least, that's how I understand it. However, I never studied law or have a law degree. So, I will admit here and now that I could be wrong.