Why don't squirt guns have 2nd amendment protection?

Squirt guns are banned from outside the GOP convention in Tampa, but not handguns.

Stupid is strong with the folks of the Florida GOP.

NYT editorial:
Opinion | The Law of the Gun in Florida - The New York Times

IMO, sensible gun laws definitely ought to permit so-called “check your weapons at the door” exceptions to concealed-carry rights.

The Republican convention in Tampa will be an approximately five-day temporary event during which the downtown area will be absolutely crawling with official security. If Tampians are expected to get along without their switchblades and their pepper spray while visiting the downtown area during this limited time period, they can get by without their handguns too.

I guess this means we will have to actually shoot them.

Ah, Florida. Crazy one day; batshit insane the next.

BTW, i’ve reported the OP so that the mods can remove some of the cut-and-paste job. You’re not supposed to copy whole articles from the internet, as it leaves the board open to copyright complaints.

Got it.

I see there was an edit button for this post but not the original. If I were editing, I’d leave in the first three and the last two paragraphs along with my comment about stupid is strong.

[Moderating]
Five paragraphs is still a bit much, particularly for such a short article. I removed the whole text of the article, but left the link in. If you’d like to summarize the article in a new post, that might help get the ball rolling on some discussion.

The SDMB does allow people to edit their posts, but only for a five minute window after submitting. This is intended to allow people to fix obvious typos or formatting errors, but prevent people from substantially altering their past arguments in the middle of the debate. This is why you could see the edit button on your most recent post, but not on your OP.

No warning issued over the copyright infringement, just be a little more careful in the future. Welcome to the boards, I hope you enjoy your stay here.
[/Moderating]

I don’t think this situation is because of any limitation on the gun laws in Florida. I think it’s simply a political statement being made by the Florida Republican Party.

No, I saw a new story that Florida state law prohibits local governments from passing any ordinances more restrictive than the state gun laws. So Tampa can’t ban guns from anywhere they’re not already banned. The same story said that guns will be banned within the convention hall itself (or maybe a part of it – that wasn’t clear) by the authority the US Secret Service pursuant to protecting presidential candidates. I dunno if FLA or any other state has challenged the SS over their authority to enforce such a ban on non-Federal property – that would make for an interesting trial.

Mere bullets cannot kill such as them, but they fear squirt guns filled with holy water.

Okay, but–if they wanted–the organizers of the convention–i.e., the Florida GOP–(apart from the Secret Service) could still ask all participants who enter to “check their weapons at the door,” couldn’t they? (Which, of course, doesn’t apply to the public area outside.)

Can’t risk Christine O’Donnell melting?

They could ask it, but they couldn’t require it, and they couldn’t bar entry to people who refused the request – which I would guess would be just about everyone carrying a gun. So they’d look like idiots. Besides, you can’t check a gun like you can check a coat. There are much more serious security and safety issues involved.

I suspect that if you try to enter the Secret Service area with a gun, they either send you away or arrest you on the spot. I’d bet money that they won’t collect your gun and promise to return it to you on the way out.

Well then, if it’s legal to carry a gun in Florida, what qualifies as a gun? Why doesn’t a squirt gun count? Why not a price gun?

Of course–it’s just that I’m not familiar with the details of the Florida law. In as much as this is a private function–effectively, it’s entry to private property–the Florida law says that the owners (not the Secret Service, but the convention center, at the behest of the party) can’t make it a condition of entry to be unarmed? Does the Florida law say, for example, that a restaurant can’t deny entry to someone with a firearm–as Starbucks tried to do in some other state a while back?

I believe the term used is “firearm”.

I know, I know… it sounds like a flame thrower to me too.

Here is a summary if FL gun laws. It’s not an official state site, so I’m not certain of it’s accuracy. But if it is accurate…

The law specifies where licensed permit holders may not bring guns – prisons, most schools, courtrooms, taverns and a few others.

If a private business or a home owner posts a “No Guns” sign, the sign has no force in law, though carriers are “requested” to respect it.

Or a really painful rash.

That link is a bunch of hooey, at least with regard to “no guns” signs. A private property owner, lessee, or concessionaire can tell you exactly what you may or may not bring onto his property, except that an employee may keep a firearm in his vehicle when parked on the employer’s property regardless of the employer’s policy.

§790.06(12), Florida Statutes also specifically prohibits the carrying of concealed firearms in polling places and legislative proceedings, which almost certainly includes the Republican Convention.

The problem here isn’t that the GOP can’t ban guns from the convention. It’s that the city can’t ban guns from downtown during the convention. It’s not really a big deal; the law allows the governor to suspend carry rights under his emergency management authority, which is probably what will happen.

A political convention not a polling place for an election, nor a legislative proceeding. It has no standing as government institution conducting government business, no more so than any other private organization holding an annual convention. My guess would be the exact opposite of yours – that the legal definition in the law regarding where guns can’t be carried does not include a political convention.

But it would be nice if a lawyer would show up and set us both straight.

I agree with Boyo Jim here. A political party’s convention almost certainly is NOT included in the definition of “polling places and legislative proceedings.”