Does passing a law that prohibits you to fire your gun infringe your 2nd amendment?

The guy in question had built an outdoor range in his back yard...in town.

Not out in the sticks, right in the old suburbs.

That isn't safe. Hell, I wouldn't put up a bow target in my back yard in town.

Now, where I live (if I'm home) is out in the county, my nearest neighbor is about a mile away through a nice thicket of mixed hardwood and pine, and I've got a berm. Grant you, I try not to open up with the 50 cal during early morning or late evening so as not to be a pest.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: and14263
Er wait... You Americans have the right to form a well regulated armed militia?

Get to it! Your country is being run by murderers who are stealing from you and your children to help themselves and their friends become rich and powerful. You are distracted as they make you look towards the Middle East but that's by the by...

Form that militia and kill some scum.

Shush dont mention that on here.

They only want the fun of the first bit not the responsibilty of the secound!

This is meant as a last resort.

Not something done on a whim.

Only after every attempt has been made, and the people just can't take anymore is this meant to occur.

Is the gov throwing people out of their houses to house their troops?

How about burning entire towns, buildings residents and all?

How about starving the population out?

How about any number of atrocities inflicted on the "colonists" by england?

There is your answer.

Are they screwing up? Absolutely!!!

Is this like the middle east? Not even close.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It all depends.

But, if my neighbor did this, and I didn't approve of the safety precautions, I would move.

I don't work to force myself on other people.

If it is lawful, and he has private property rights, he can do this.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It all depends.

But, if my neighbor did this, and I didn't approve of the safety precautions, I would move.

I don't work to force myself on other people.

If it is lawful, and he has private property rights, he can do this.

Well stated... It's circumstantial. And if someone's safety precautions are up to par and I don't feel my family is in danger; I don't have a problem with it. It doesn't sound like the referenced incident was up to this standard.

a reply to: peskyhumans

I am one of those lunatics that believe the 2nd Amendment is all the gun legislation needed. If Uncle Sam invents a weapon, then they chose to open Pandoras Box. The People should match force with The Government.

With that said...i do not believe disagreement with the constitution should be cause for running someone out of the country, as you would seem to suggest. Because within that constitution is a guarantee of personal liberty. Creating thought crimes to deport everyone with a dissenting opinion is as unAmerican as it gets.

I wish we didn't have to have a "gun debate". But thank God that we can.

Just make sure you fire your gun on someone else's property, then it's legal. You can figure out where. a reply to: peskyhumans

a reply to: peskyhumans
Agree wholeheartedly.

Rebel 5

There's is an even easier way to circumvent the 2nd amendment.

I've said it all along....you will be allowed to "bear" all the arms you want
...bullets will be illegal

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

This man doesn't want to have to go to the gun range to shoot. Well, Wah! It's people like this that give a bad name to law-abiding, safe, responsible gun owners. And maybe he is one. But his insistence on taking advantage of the loophole in the law shows a real lack of common sense.

I was sort-of going to agree with your points, but then you used the word "loophole", which immediately pegs you as "one of those kind of people".

To ATS in general, a point to consider:

"Loophole" is a nasty word used by nasty people who want to make everyone else kowtow to their whims and wishes. They use it to try and demonise behaviour they do not like but cannot claim is illegal.

There is no such thing as a loophole. A law either prohibits something, or it does not. If it does not prohibit it, that is not a "loophole". It's not a "whoops! they really meant to do this but they forgot, let's all pretend they actually said..." situation. It's the law, as voted on and passed through the legislative process.

Laws might be badly written, or sometimes plain wrong, but the fact that you disagree with it does not mean anyone exercising that legal right is somehow engaging in subterfuge, or antisocial behaviour, or thumbing their noses at society - yet this is exactly the intention behind labelling that behaviour as "using a loophole".

"Loophole" is a word used by people with an agenda who dislike the fact that the law does not say and do exactly what THEY think the world should be saying or doing.

The kind of people who use the word "loophole" are the same people who use the word "compromise" to mean "my way or nothing", the word "reasonable" to mean "my way or nothing", and the word "commonsense" to mean... bonus points if you guessed "my way or nothing". In fact, if you pay attention you will notice how often this combination of words come together in a single sentence.

So, to return from that minor detour and look at the point in question - in this instance I would side entirely with the guy with the range. Not because he is necessarily doing the right thing in the situation (because with all rights come responsibilities, including the responsibility to exercise that right in a way that limits or prevents it putting others at risk), but because I think that people who use the word "loophole" are a far bigger danger to my children in the long run than the guy with the gun next door. The guy with the gun might only accidentally kill them. The person using the word "loophole" wants to deliberately force them to spend the rest of their lives having their hopes, dreams, and spirits being crushed under the special kind of social hell constructed by the kind of people who use the word "loophole". A relatively quick death would probably be a mercy

a reply to: WilsonWilson

Well firing your gun in your back yard is crazy but what if your back yard is an acre of land and you have built your own gun rang complete with dirt backstops on all sides? I've seen people do it!

a reply to: WilsonWilson

Well firing your gun in your back yard is crazy but what if your back yard is an acre of land and you have built your own gun rang complete with dirt backstops on all sides? I've seen people do it! Not all backyards are created equal lol!

a reply to: peskyhumans

How about we pass a law that if a group of politicians introduce a stupid bill they get fired.

Now that would be a great law.

i had something comparable happen like this,even made a thread about it under i think my old user name(lost pw) but i live in a rural area of Montana on over 4 acres with no visible neighbors and berms built for safety ,from the article the key difference here is that he is in a heavy urban environment ie he has multiple neighbors that could be hit with stray projectiles now to be fair he did build safety features but still generally in side city limits is a no go for this kind of thing. i have only seen one in city limits home range that was legal in my life and that was in a multimillion dollar home and it was 2 stores under ground and next to his built in bowling alley in monte sereno California of all places

it seems the man was wanting to do this to avoid the expense of going to a shooting range (same reason i dont go to one) BUT it seems other then the proposed legislation this issue is mostly resolved as the man was given a years free membership at a shooting range in exchange for him taking down his home made backstop and berms

from OPs link

Joseph Carannante, 21, used wooden pallets, cinder blocks and dirt to build a roughly four-foot-tall backstop at which he could fire his Springfield XD-S 9 mm pistol in the backyard of his St. Petersburg house. He said the two jobs that he works take up 16 hours of his day, and he can’t afford the roughly $20 it costs to go to a local gun range. He agreed to tear down the structure, which he built over the weekend, on Wednesday after a local hospital and a radio host separately arranged free, year-long passes to two local gun ranges

so if the law only regulates urban dwellers i don't see as as much a problem with it compared to a flat ban on any one any where(in florida) shooting on their own private property if it is safe to do so and not done in such away that will negligently endanger neighbors or put the general populace in danger (ie if your property borders a children's park its perhaps not the best place to have a shooting range border said park

www.claimsjournal.com... few older links talking about how currently this is infact legal if not exactly wise

Near the National Key Deer Refuge in the Lower Keys, on a sleepy street called Mango Lane, retired sheriff’s deputy Huey Gordon checked the waterway behind neighbor Doug Varrieur’s home for boat traffic. “All clear?” asked Varrieur, an author of diet cookbooks and owner of rental properties. “Yes, sir, you are,” Gordon said. To which Varrieur replied: “The range is hot.” He put on earmuffs and, within a few seconds, the peace of the residential neighborhood was replaced with the burst of small-caliber gunfire. Varrieur fired seven shots that traveled 21 feet to a target that had three cans inside a box and a picture of a zombie holding a screaming woman. “All right, one dead can,” said Varrieur, 57. It has been a month since the friends first fired their guns in this makeshift shooting area – surrounded by a chain-link fence, a shiny RV and the canal. The shots sent shockwaves through the neighborhood.

highlandstoday.com... link to current florida law on the matter

Florida Law F.S.S. 790.15Discharging firearm in public or on residential property. (1)Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street, who knowingly discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises, or who recklessly or negligently discharges a firearm outdoors on any property used primarily as the site of a dwelling as defined in s. 776.013 or zoned exclusively for residential use commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Florida Forest Service. (2)Any occupant of any vehicle who knowingly and willfully discharges any firearm from the vehicle within 1,000 feet of any person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (3)Any driver or owner of any vehicle, whether or not the owner of the vehicle is occupying the vehicle, who knowingly directs any other person to discharge any firearm from the vehicle commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. SEBRING - Sebring Police Department's Commander Steve Carr remembered a time residents couldn't fire guns within city limits. Many towns and cities in Florida had local ordinances restricting or outrightly banning use of weapons within their jurisdictions. That changed in many municipalities in 2011 when the Florida Legislature added penalties for local governments who over-rode state laws on gun ownership and use, called state preemption. - See more at: highlandstoday.com...

www.abajournal.com... seems with out this law passing what this man did would still continue to be legal under state law (baring any changes)

To put an addition on your home or install an in-ground swimming pool in the Florida town of Sunrise requires cooperating with code enforcement and zoning officials. But those who want to set up a backyard shooting range there—or anywhere else in the state—can simply do so, Reuters reports. Under state law, local jurisdictions do not have the power to regulate recreational shooting on private residential property. The state imposes only minimal restrictions, requiring bullets not to be shot over paved public roads or occupied dwellings and banning shooting that is “reckless or negligent,” the news agency notes. Local officials who interfere with backyard gun ranges could be fined as much as $5,000 and removed from office by the governor. They are also prohibited from restricting other individual gun rights.

for what its worth thats how the law in florida stands now......

2nd amendment doesn't provide any right its soley purpose is to deny federal and state government the power to abridge your right to bear arms that you already had.

imo the founding fathers believed gun rights were a natural or god given right because of scripture in the bible. During the era when Bible was written a sword would be what a gun is in modern times. Bible tells of Jesus saying to sell possessions to buy a sword then in another place it says to beat plow shares into swords so the weak can be strong.

The 9th and 2nd amendment together lock in gun rights where government shouldn't be allow to touch that right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

For about 12 years i lived in a house with a long central hallway that was 50 feet long.

I set up a shooting range for my 22 rifle in the hall and shot all the time.

With the long barrel it had and subsonic ammo no one ever knew i was doing it.

originally posted by: rival
There's is an even easier way to circumvent the 2nd amendment.

I've said it all along....you will be allowed to "bear" all the arms you want
...bullets will be illegal

I don't know how easy that would be. The US Supreme Court has ruled that a person has a right to own a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home. The catch is, its kind of hard to do that without ammunition. This very issue of an ammunition ban came up a few years ago in the DC Court of Appeals in the Herrington vs DC case, and the court correctly ruled that ammunition was also covered by the 2nd Amendment using the same basic argument I've outlined here.

Granted, the composition of the Supreme Court could change and previous decisions revised or reversed by new cases, but until that happens, an ammunition ban would seem very problematic by logical extension of the existing 2A cases we have now.

originally posted by: ANNED
For about 12 years i lived in a house with a long central hallway that was 50 feet long.

I set up a shooting range for my 22 rifle in the hall and shot all the time.

With the long barrel it had and subsonic ammo no one ever knew i was doing it.

I want to post a word of warning to those that set up indoor ranges.
Provide for adequate ventilation!
There is lead in the gases produced at the muzzle and will contaminate the air when you shoot indoors.
Unjacketed bullets and FMJ are worse than JSP and JHP in the amount of lead that is vaporized.

There are a lot of commercial ranges in urban areas, but they have to be built in a way that protects those around them.

There is an old saying that goes, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

Certainly one should be able to shoot in one's own backyard IF they take the appropriate steps to ensure that the bullets fired STAY in his backyard. Typically in a rural or semi rural area you don't have to do much to have a safe shooting area. In a city or suburbs, however, the steps one usually has to take from berms to walls do not make it a practical endevour for a private shooter because of the proximity of the neighbors.

a reply to: NavyDoc

In a city or suburbs, however, the steps one usually has to take from berms to walls do not make it a practical endevour for a private shooter because of the proximity of the neighbors.

Yes.
If you have ever had an auto pistol go 'rock and roll' due to a sear issue, you know that even an experienced shooter ends up with rounds going out at 45 degrees above horizontal in that event.
In an urban area, an adequate backyard range would have an overhead cover that is resistant to penetration by the most powerful round that you intend to shoot there.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: NavyDoc

In a city or suburbs, however, the steps one usually has to take from berms to walls do not make it a practical endevour for a private shooter because of the proximity of the neighbors.

Yes.
If you have ever had an auto pistol go 'rock and roll' due to a sear issue, you know that even an experienced shooter ends up with rounds going out at 45 degrees above horizontal in that event.
In an urban area, an adequate backyard range would have an overhead cover that is resistant to penetration by the most powerful round that you intend to shoot there.

I have to agree. The 4 ft "berm" that the man in the article built was not sufficient. All it takes is a single flyer to send the round up and over said "berm" and into the next yard.