“Authorities are planning to cordon off a ‘weapons-free assembly zone’ around the statue of Robert E. Lee on Monument Avenue in an effort to head off any potential violence at a rally to support preserving Confederate monuments planned for Saturday,” richmond.com reports. Oh wait. They changed their minds (something about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). The Chief of the RPD had this to say about that . . .

“I feel your pain,” Durham told a woman who had asked what advice he had for counterprotesters who wanted to protect themselves from being shot. “The same fear you have is the same fear my officers have. The only thing I can say is, don’t show up and you don’t have to worry about being shot.”

Why do I get the idea that the antifa movement would love for one of their own to get shot? And while I don’t share that view, I wonder what would happen next, generally. Meanwhile, is there any place where [otherwise legally carried] guns should be banned? Prisons, obviously. But what about airplanes? Within a certain proximity of the President? Court rooms? If anywhere, where?

82 Responses to Question of the Day: Is There Anywhere Guns Should Be Banned?

    • The question is logically flawed. The only way to enforce a gun ban is with armed people, so guns are going to be there anyway or you have no effective ban. The legally sanctioned armed people are still just people, as flawed as everybody else. And when one of them decides to do evil, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have good guys with guns.

      The right to keep and bear arms is based fundamentally on property rights: you own yourself, and have the right to defend yourself, your property, from harm. Your real estate property is also rightfully yours to control as you see fit, including the prohibition of anyone else coming onto that property with a firearm. It is up to the person desirous of entering your property to decide whether to obey your rules and enter, or not to enter. To enter in violation of your rules is a violation of your property rights.

      (@Dcj – this isn’t really a reply to your comment. I’m just selfishly using the reply function to get my comment near the top of the list.)

      • If you want to find out if the gun control nut you are talking to is really foolish look for the claim that the NRA does not allow firearms at its events — a claim that has been debunked over and over. NRA has never once prohibited carry of firearms at its events.

        What that “EveryLie for gun safety” claim comes from is the fact that some localities firecode, and some large venues’ insurance policies, disallow firearms in some circumstances. This has happened at about 1/500 NRA events

        To say that is “NRA banning” firearms at its own events is like claiming the “ACLU bans fourth amendment protection at its own events” at events where there are hotel or convention center metal detectors, or claiming “ACLU bans First Amendment” if a venue or locality does not allow skywriting by drone.

        Again if you hear the NRA bans guns at its events” you can be assured the person claiming this is a completely disingenuous and ignorant fool.

        • Ah NO. That’s why liability insurance is a thing. And people can sue for damn near anything…

        • At any rate, there should be a vastly different standard of liability vis-a-vis a place of business vs. a private residence.

        • ActionPhysicalMan, Yes, engaging in trade does alter your property rights a little. Any place that opens its doors to the general public is implying that everyone is welcome to enter their property. So they should provide a little more security/protection for the public, and when they want to seclude a certain type of people then they should put up a sign indicating so. If there is some condition there that makes it a little unsafe to be there (including a gun-free zone), then they should be required to take extra safety precautions to mitigate that risk to their customers.

          I should not be required to do those things at my private home, because it definitely (and clearly) is not open to the public.

      • Gotta love those 2A absolutists. They’ll scream about their rights at the top of their lungs about their rights, but they don’t give a crap about anyone else’s rights.

        They and their libertarian brethren are immature brats who who want what they want when they want it. They have no mature thoughts about the nature of rights, let alone overlapping rights.
        Yet, the 2A absolutists just want what’s good for them, which they wrap up in rights talk to lend their selfishness a mantle of legitimacy.

        People in contact eventuates in rights in conflict. Yet, the 2A absolutists demand that any voluntary surrender of their rights, as when they choose to enter someone’s private property, be forcefully compensated at the property owner’s expense. What they cannot achieve via mutual, voluntary bilateral agreement with the property owner, they demand that the government deliver by stepping in to extract by force from said property owners.

        Let’s see,

        Statists believe in rights for me, but none for thee.

        2A absolutists believe in rights for me, and thee’s for me, too.

        Hmmm…..sounds like a distinction without a difference. Both are freedom snatchers, just backed by different propaganda.

        • “…[I]s there any place where [otherwise legally carried] guns should be banned? Prisons, obviously.”

          The 2A “absolutists” here – in the prison example – show themselves as doing the mission a disservice. El Chapo’s lawyer – let’s assume – has an “absolute” right to confer privately with his client; and, to bear arms while doing so with equal “absoluteness”. As the lawyer has a duty to do so, there is no matter of choice; he can’t simply confer with other clients who are not yet behind bars.

          So: Is there a prison exception to lawyers bearing arms while conferring with clients? If there is, then there is at least one exception; and so, the whole argument of absolutism fails.

          We may not know whether there is any second exception, such as in a court room. Nor a third. It doesn’t matter; once we discover one exception the notion of absolutism fails (except in the minds of the absolutists). We can’t hope to persuade 1/3 of militia-aged males to muster at the barricades to defend the absoluteness of the 2A right for lawyers to bear arms conferring with prisoners.

          It makes more sense – to me – to argue about the rights of an adult, law-abiding, woman to openly bear – e.g., a 2-shot derringer – on the streets of NYC or DC. Did she have that right in the 18’th century? 19’th? 20’th? Today?

          If not, why not? When did she lose it? At what point did HER right to bear THAT arm slip beneath the protection of the Constitution. If we can’t get traction on this case, how do we expect to get traction on any other scenario?

        • Jonathan, by your “logic” local, county and state governments can institute bans on First, Fourth and Fifth amendment rights because they all also affect other people and that anyone speaking against such a ban is “just a nutty absolutist.”

          Essentially you are arging Frist, Forth, Fifth and Second as “collective rights” and rights which can be preemptively abrogated by any authority if they may in any possibility affect second parties?

    • Private business owners can ban guns….as soon as they have the Right to bake or not bake a cake….until then, the 2nd Amendment is a Right, just like the Freedom of Religion…and if a private business can’t practice their religious beliefs and have a business, then they can’t deny the 2nd Amendment Right of their customers to carry a gun.

    • It the owner opens his property to the PUBLIC, then his opinions on firearms are irrelevant. The Bill of Rights is absolute.

      • Big diference between private property and private property opened to the public. A private business open to the public should have no right to ban firearms. For those who say, “but property rights”, I say when you open your business to the public you give up some of your private property right. You cannot for example ban blacks, or gays, or Latinos, or blonds or people with tattoos, or old people, or fat people, etc.from entering your business. Try it and see what happens. On your own private property (your home) you have the right to ban any of the above examples.

  1. Banned by policy or statute with law and criminal penalties? The latter not really unless you refuse to leave, then trespassing is in order.

    • That makes sense to me. And if other places want to ban guns, then let them provide the same measures that those facilities do: armed security, screening, and a check-in/check-out process for people carrying legally.

      I wouldn’t have nearly as much problems with “gun free zones” if they were actually secure perimeters.

      • No, sir. Those are government facilities that you have a right to utilize.

        Private property like a shop or restaurant or personal residence? No way.

        Don’t like it, don’t visit. You have no right to be there in the first place.

    • Guns in courthouses might make judges and lawyers feel like the have to act like REAL people, not holier than thou scum. Why is it that you don’t mind me carrying into a hospital, but not a courthouse? I remember when you could have a gun in your carry-on luggage and NOT cause a nightly news worthy federal incident.

      • Those people already have to leave the relative safety of the courtroom and live in the community.

        Courts decide more than traffic tickets and small claims cases. When the stakes are high, people frequently lose their sh*t and threaten each other in open court. Not to mention the implications for witness and jury intimidation. Think about it and you will see why it is a bad idea.

      • I agree, however, that judges and lawyers get away with too much… douschebaggery.

        Perhaps courtrooms are too insulated from public scrutiny. Courtroom webcams perhaps?

  2. I work around highly corrosive chemical that can eat through stainless steel. Probably not a good idea to take your gun arround the plant.

  3. Nope. There is no place out in public where you should be denied the ability to KABA. “Even places where they have metal detectors and armed security?”. you ask; yes, even there. The bad guy(s) can just shoot the armed security, and they would have free mass murder reign, which happened at the Washington Navy ship yards.

  4. No. There is no such thing as a ‘Inalienable Rights Free Zone’, and accordingly there is no such thing as a gun free zone. There’s only statist scum that believe in rights when it’s convenient to them.

    And if ideology isn’t good enough for you then how about the hard reality of self defense in that there’s no place you can ever secure enough to keep you safe. Federal prisons are kind of the gold standard of keeping a place locked down and even they still have problems with the smuggling of weapons and contraband. Hell we’re even at the point where untraceable home made drones are being used to drop stuff inside the prison. What are you going to do next? Put huge domes over the place? Because AF guns area already absolute, thanks to people adjusting radios outside of normal bandwidth.

    • Ohhh… good one!

      I was going to suggest a fireworks factory. Or the production floor where they make gun powder. Or where they make tannerite.

  5. In war zones.

    Like the Greek women who cut off their husbands from the sexy time–“war’s over man, she dropped the big one….”

  6. Offhand, I’d say North Korea, Yemen, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, sometimes China and any other country that either dislikes us or just won’t comply with fair trade practices. Not a damn one of those should have so much as a Glock.

  7. Secure portions of prisons and jails, and private property where the owner/tenant says so.

    Anywhere else, if someone’s not safe or doesn’t feel safe, then they shouldn’t be there.

  8. Second Amendment?

    Well… about that…

    Constitution of Virginia
    Article I. Bill of Rights
    Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
    That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    And…

    § 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.
    A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.

  9. Private residents that are posted, anyplace that is willing to accept responsibility for actions of criminals on their premises.

    I like how we do it here in Georgia, if they ask you to leave and you don’t, it becomes misdemeanor trespass with a minor fine.

  10. Setting aside all other arguments for a moment:

    GFZs have bugged me for a long time because, other than places that will allow you to “check” your weapon, they’re compromising public safety while claiming to promote it. Parking lots for known GFZs have been a “shopping area” for thieves looking for handguns for a long time.

    In NM it took the Santa Fe Police Chief disarming to enter a restaurant that served alcohol and having his service pistol lifted from his car for them to realize this.

    You can’t claim to be enhancing public safety when you’re basically telling the criminals where to steal handguns so that the guns can be sold on the black market. At absolute best such behavior is effectively criminal negligence in my book.

      • And, if you watch the parking lot, as happened with the Chief I mentioned, you know immediately where the guns are.

        The cops thought it was really weird that every car hit had a gun missing from it and no other cars were touched until they caught the spotter.

        Sometimes I just SMH at the intelligence level people display. I can just see these cops standing around scratching their heads Hurr durr, how do dey know where da guns is?”

  11. The only places that can morally justify banning weapons (not just guns) are those with security so tight, pervasive and capable that they can do a better job protecting you than you can for yourself. Very few qualify. The overwhelming majority that prohibit weapons are target rich environments for the bad guys.

  12. No guns in jails or prison. Maybe not on a court room. Ok in the rest of the building. All public spaces Ok. Guns for teachers and school staff and parents.

    • “…Maybe not on a court room.”

      Why? What makes the area outside the courtroom so much different than the area inside the courtroom?

      Not a rhetorical question….. why do you think inside the courtroom is not a good idea? I am genuinely interested in your answer.

      • The difference in my opinion is that a courthouse is usually full of other government offices that have nothing to do with the day to day function of the court. Like the ag extension office.

        There is a difference, but I think I should be able to carry in a courtroom, and since they aren’t going to make a special law for me …

  13. “is there any place where [otherwise legally carried] guns should be banned?”

    Yeah. Any place my last GF can reach. That vixen was nucking futs and probably still is.

  14. I would think mental hospitals for the criminally insane and extremely dangerous as well as prisons (but I repeat myself).

    I don’t support gun-free court rooms: violent attackers have acquired firearms from police/bailiffs in courtrooms and shot/murdered people.

    • I didn’t think about mental hospitals. I’d say only the secure portions of any secure facility, not the whole facility.

  15. Anywhere an armed official can guarantee my safety before his own. Since I’m not running for president to get secret service. Pretty limited areas otherwise.

  16. Anywhere my family goes should be allowed. Time has shown that even at schools and churches our families are not safe, which is why we don’t go to church. What idiot thinks it’s ok to take away people’s right to defend themselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *