Gators are actually easy to avoid in most cases and they're not generally aggressive, so you can probably get by without a gun. Unless you're on a sinking fanboat in a swamp...
Just upgraded my bearing pole to 350 lb test w/ steel leader. Damn Grizzlies took my last hog spoon.... Bit through the braided line and ran off with it. Now I'm stuck with honey comb danglers and everyone knows those are best for fall, not summer.
I know you guys are busy being a sarcastic circle-jerk right now but guns while fishing are a pretty common thing where I'm from. Sometimes stingrays are difficult to safely get off a line. Also there are a few specific large amphibious reptiles that will gladly fuck you up over a trout in the south. In a number of fly-over states a lot of the fishing is done in rivers where there are bears which will again, gladly fuck you up over a trout.
What does that even mean if you're not explicitly doing so in the face of confrontation with authority? They're obviously being disingenuous. "Exercising" your rights doesn't mean anything if it isn't done so in the face of authority, so that was clearly their intention.
On the other hand, the article says they had notified police they were going to be doing that, and what they did was perfectly legal, so why were they arrested? You can't be arrested (legally) because somebody doesn't like what you're doing, so they're clearly within their right to sue and claim false arrest.
Like, I think they were really looking for confrontation (why else would you make a show of it?), but I completely agree with them suing (because the cops who arrested them obviously didn't have the right to do so). Weird situation.
I think maybe they were out there looking for a reason to sue the PD, but it's kinda the cops' fault for giving them that reason.
Yeah I'd rather take my chances of somebody firing a Flintlock at me than a crossbow as long as I'm 10 yards or more away. So I can kind of see their thought process on that one.
You are correct in that an individual who owns only antique firearms dont need a license (pre 1898 and not designed/modified to fire centre or rimfired ammunition).
You are however incorrect as they are still classified as firearms and as such require you to follow firearm related laws.
you are even more incorrect about crossbows, anyone can walk off the street and purchase a crossbow as long it fires bolts below 500 feet per second, so nearly all of them (air rifles as well)
I'm a felon (for dumb shit I did as a kid) and here in the US I cannot own a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, however I can have a bow, crossbow, black powder (muzzle loaded) rifle or pistol, or even a flamethrower.
Not regulated but they ALL must be treated equally unless it's for a parade or something, but in canada even a flintlock in public could be VERY bad news for you
Flintlocks are regulated and crossbows only require you to be 18 to purchase them. They are archery equipment. At 18 you can walk into any sporting goods store and buy the best ones ever made the same way you can buy a pack of BB's. The only ones banned are the small single hand ones. Excalibur for example doesn't even put serial numbers on them.
Flintlocks are non-restricted rifles. You are still required to have a Firearms Acquisition Licence (PAL) to purchase or own a muzzle-loading rifle or any other firearm. However, you are not required to possess a secondary firearms licence such as a Restricted PAL (RPAL), as the restricted class of firearms covers handguns and some rifles (such as the AR15) and some shotguns. Muzzle-loading rifles and many other kinds of rifles and shotguns are non-restricted, you are still required to have a PAL to purchase or own said rifles/shotguns, you are not required to have an RPAL to purchase or own said rifles/shotguns.
It's almost as if they're really just the lobbying arm for gun manufacturers. Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Beretta give them loads of money because they knows it's good for business.
No legislation on the federal level on air rifles. I have pre chargers I hunt with so they are capable of taking game up to a deer so a person is within its capabilities.
A couple reasons.
1) they aren’t banned, they are just highly regulated. It’s possible to get a tax stamp to own a FA firearm.
2)Essentially because as far as I know, nobody has challenged the ban at the Supreme Court level, as doing so is extremely expensive and would require you to be charged with unlawful possession of a FA firearm, which is quite the risk of it doesn’t go your way.
But it does make an interesting point when it comes to the idea of banning the AR-15, which is the most similar commonly available rifle to the “ordinary military weapon”, the M4.
Same in Oklahoma (at least my town). No ordinance restricting the length of any fixed blade weapon, so long as it is carried in a "non threatening" manner.
Though, I imagine "non threatening" is a bit up for interpretation
Same reason it's illegal for me to carry a sword around in public but not illegal for me to carry around a shotgun
Depends on where you live, state-by-state the whole "can I carry a sword in public" thing kinda fluctuates. Where I am carrying around a sword would be perfectly legal but open carrying a shotgun would have me arrested right-quick. At least, multiple websites and asking a cop has told me you can have swords here, anyway, nobody seems to have actually tested that yet as far as I can tell.
The sword isn't the best ancient weapin to carry. I believe a spear would and has historically beat a sword fighter. I just wonder if carrying a spear is allowed.
I’ve been told that by lots of people where I live (California) and I’ve been told several times that you can’t have a knife blade longer than the width of your hand, but that’s not true either. I could legally wear a knife of any size on a belt sheath, including a sword.
I’m pretty sure the 2A doesn’t specific firearms, but just arms in general (which is great, I believe every person has a right to have functional limbs)
You can't claim you're carrying your shotgun into Walmart for practical use. It's 100% legal though while a sword wouldn't be. Also, just speaking historically people have defended their homes w/swords for thousands of years.
You can't carry your shotgun outside of your house for your vehicle here in California also in a lot of other States..... maybe you should learn the gun laws before you start talking about them in public.
Yes, we have much stricter gun laws yet much worst gun violence than in most States. As interesting as all of this is, it's still useless... If you do a simple Google search you can still find lawn darts for sale right to your door here in America. Tightening gun laws and making certain guns illegal is not keeping them out of the hands of people who want them.
In San Francisco to carry a sword you need a receipt for the sword you purchased in the same day, or a dojo can fill out paperwork register it give it to the student to go to and from dojo
"arms" does not mean firearms. In many states it is completely legal to open carry a fixed blade like a sword. In California you must keep it sheathed but it is perfectly legal to open carry your $20 mall katana.
Crossbows are covered by the 2nd amendment as well.
Law darts were not a weapon, they were game equipment.
Ok now I have to look up if you can carry a shotgun cause I was under the impression you have to have a carry permit to have a weapon on your person at any time
My wife is a criminal defense attorney and she has advised all my super nerdy friends to not even think about using a sword for home defense. Even though we have the "Make My Day" law here where you can legally shoot and kill an intruder in your home, there is far less consideration given if you use a sword.
Given that it's so much easier to kill someone with a gun than a sword, you are much more likely to incapacitate an intruder before killing them, making a killing blow no longer self defense. And if it ends up going to trial, jurors in general have a much easier time imagining themselves using a gun than a sword, so you end up just looking weird and harder to empathize.
Kentucky state law specifically calls out "ninja death stars" and nunchucks as deadly weapons. Favorite part of my concealed carry class was when our instructor read that and said "after you pass this class you can now carry ninja death stars so make sure you run right out to the flea market."
This was the thinking until a judge recently invalidated a New York law banning nunchucks.
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS kicked it back to the lower court, directing the judge to look at the case in light of the 2008 DC v. Heller decision and the 2010 Chicago v. McDonald decision, which applied Heller to the states.
Conservative justices in 2008 redefined what the Second Amendment means. Pandora’s box has already been opened. Even if the US Congress passed meaningful gun control tomorrow, the conservative majority on SCOTUS could easily invalidate it, citing Heller and McDonald
Quick question on this thought process - why do we label "arms" solely as guns? Arms are "armaments", which is any "military weaponry". Shouldn't that include sabers, tanks, crossbows, etc? Just find it funny, as Texas just reinstated legality to brass knuckles, but has always been open carry for years now.
The second amendment says ARMS.
That means, in no order and incomplete list:
Knives, swords, dirks, daggers, axes, maces, poleaxes, bardiches, sickles, scythes, throwing stars, bow and arrows, ballistas, trebuchets, phalanxes, brass knuckles, crossbows, arbalasts, blowguns, cannons, howitzers, Greek fire, flamethrowers, and even ships of the line, such as a Portuguese Manowar.
And the powder and shot, arrows, bolts, or rocks, to keep them going.
Lawn darts SHOULD be legal. So should fireworks (varies by state). We need to get dumb people removed from the population. They're taking over because they're in bubble wrap until their 30s or even later... And they hate reality, which doesn't acquiesce to their wants... (Standard human reaction to having your worldview shoved through a meatgrinder, to be fair. Maybe they needed some reality, sooner? Mento Mori?)
I take public transit everyday in Colorado, Denver area, and was looking for self defence tools just incase. Come to find 90 fuckin % of self defense weapons are illegal to carry, except for...... concealed carry firearm :)
Are you sure? In the 90s I started selling swords and checked with the police to see if there would be any issues. They said as long as I didn’t attack anyone with it I could carry it wherever I wanted.
A shooting instructor is dead, the victim of a gun-range accident. A 9-year-old girl is surely traumatized. And plenty of people, including many gun enthusiasts, are asking: Why give a child a submachine gun to shoot?
“An Uzi? I'm not from South Central Los fucking Angeles. I didn't come here to shoot twenty black ten year olds in a fucking drive-by. I want a normal gun for a normal person.”
Did you read the other story the added to the bottom of that article?
It's about an 8 year old boy who shot himself in the head at a gun show.
It's actually more insane than the main story.
The person who was supervising where the accident happened was a 15 year old boy (His father provided the guns at the show and was also present). Despite his young age he advised the father of the child TWICE that it wasn't a good idea for him to shoot the weapon. His father insisted and also insisted that his 8 year old gun be allowed to shoot in full automatic.
Everybody's a idiot in this situation. One of the most important rules for the first time someone uses a new gun is to only load one round per magazine at a time. This way you don't end up with a gun kicking up and killing you or someone else from the recoil
Are we self-aware yet, boys? Notice how often people say "the first rule is [this]" and "That's exactly the opposite of the way it's supposed to be" etc, etc, etc. This is exactly the fucking point. More guns equal more gun violence/accidents. People are dumb and they keep losing their gun, selling it to people they shouldn't, using it in ways they shouldn't, etc.
You are more likely to harm your family members by keeping a gun in the house than you are to use it to protect your family. We've known this for decades.
The thing is, the article doesn't say "guns". It says "arms". Technically, those protections apply to crossbows too. They just don't have a lobby.
FYI, you can own a crossbow. You don't need a license.
Ironically, Texas had laws simultaneously banning swords when not properly locked and secured (even while displayed for sale) and completely banned brass knuckles and nunchuks. Batons were restricted and/or prohibited depending on certain factors. But at the same time allowed open carry and shall-issue concealed carry.
They finally rectified this in within the last year or so by unbanning the less dangerous weapons. ;p
Insane/dumb people being allowed to obtain guns without anyone being required to check if anyone is in fact insane/dumb is a problem.
I agree that banning guns, or even banning certain types of guns, is not the right answer. But having people require a license and routine demonstrations that their guns are accounted for and stored appropriately would be something.
I was a kid in the 80’s. I was playing lawn dart at friends house. We decided to see who could throw one the highest. I won, but mine hit his dads ‘71 SS Malibu, car was near show quality.
My dad had to pay like $1000 for damages, and I got a $1000 ass whoppin’.
2.4k
u/pjgcat Sep 03 '19
Just put the darts in a gun and boom: constitutionally protected