This is all about intent and perception.
Many of the gun control laws in America have been passed after black Americans were seen exercising their right to possess and carry firearms during times of conflict and confrontation.
Many white people were certainly threatened by this, but I would argue that that the intent behind the act of carrying firearms was more often not to threaten, but to provide self defense in threatening situations.
None, apparently. But as BobLibDem (and I) mentioned earlier, just because one is allowed to openly carry firearms anywhere one goes doesn’t necessarily mean one should. To some, apparently, there is no difference. Others of us have more sense than that.
Does management get to hang a “No Firearms Allowed on Premises” sign and enforce it?
Most of us file tax returns because it’s the law, and we generally obey the law because it makes for a more pleasant existence.
Why would he file the tax return? He doesn’t recognize the federal government as having any legitimacy at all–why would he obey “laws” from a nonexistent government? He doesn’t fear the IRS or the marshals coming out to his ranch, because he doesn’t recognize their legitimacy and so would be authorized, in his mind, to use deadly force against any attempt to seize his property or his records (and I’m sure he’s got kids and supporters who would help man the ramparts).
He’s self-employed, so there’s no HR department to automatically withhold the government’s share from his paycheck. He’s probably not keeping much money in banks, either–that’s part of the ideology.
“Sovereign citizens” are frequently tax protesters; see, e.g., the Browns in New Hampshire, who hadn’t paid taxes for a decade before Uncle Sam came after them. The federal marshals there eventually captured the couple through a ruse (undercover officers pretending to be supporters), and found their home was littered with explosives, booby traps, and so forth.
Yep. Private property rights trump free carry. Think of it as a “dress code.”
“No shirts, no shoes, gun - no service.”
You sure about that?
In Kansas at least, yes.
Kansas Administrative Regulation 16·11·7 (b): “No license issued pursuant to or recognized under the personal and family protection act shall authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun into any building other than a state or municipal building if the building is conspicuously posted with signs that include the graphic in the document titled “buildings other than state and municipal buildings: signage adopted by the Kansas attorney general,” dated June 20, 2013, which is hereby adopted by reference.” --this implements the provisions of Kansas Statute 75-7c10.
That sign is a big red circle with a slash over the silhouette of a handgun. See the Kansas Attorney General’s webpage for details. Carrying a concealed weapon into a marked building is not a criminal violation, but under the law the owner is authorized to remove violators from the premises.
Just got finished a round of searching and it seems like it’s the case. Apparently, most states carve out exceptions for this when writing the laws. Even Mississippi’s law, which I think is currently the most lax regarding restrictions, allows businesses to disallow guns.
Just for reference, found an SDMB thread from 2011.
So in his mind he was shooting at a burglar, not a law enforcement officer? Skirts the issue, in my opinion.
It takes a special kind of logic to say “Hmmm… I’ll be going to a protest of the actions of dozens of armed federal authorities. It will be broad daylight with hundreds of people around me. Guess I need to bring my best weaponry.”
This is from New Jersey, but it’s my understanding that other states have similar rules:
I can’t help but wonder how the posters here would report on a group of armed Native Americans facing off against the government? I’ll go so far as say they’d post about the evils of an overarching government that is abusing protestors.
I agree, but I have more patience for someone who legally brings a rifle to a protest and doesn’t brandish it, and especially doesn’t point it at anyone, than for the rock and Molotov cocktail throwing members of the Occupy crowd.
The Bundy protest/standoff may possibly have ended peacefully because of the mutually assured destruction scenario resulting from both sides being armed with lethal force, as opposed to events like this.
If he dares.
OR they could have stayed home and let the authorities do their job, which would have been both legal and a damn sight safer. They very idea that an armed and unruly mob backing up a law-breaking freeloader strikes some sort of “balance” with law enforcement officials doing what is legally expected of them is rather sick, in my opinion. The lawbreaker has no right to confront the law with equal force.
The first case apparently has not been dismissed, the second case was a sort of pre-emptive “jury pardon,” and I seen nothing in either to indicate the defendant would have had any actual legal defense based on mistaken identity, which would be pretty damned narrow loophole anyway.
No, I think we’d simply regret that it came to this, without in any way defending their right to confront government agents with arms.
It’s the same case.
I am saying that these two contrasting cases exemplify Heinlein’s maxim that a well armed society is a polite one, not that the outcome in Nevada was positive. I agree with the OP as to the moral hazard issue here, but I am also glad that there was no shooting. It’s a case of no good options.
It comes down to this: If we can not enact and enforce regulations covering the shared use of public lands and areas, we can not continue to have public lands and areas. That goes for illegal protest campgrounds on college campuses and in parks, as well as trespass cattle on BLM land.