How would pro-gun people here defend this?

[Teallaura]

This is true with regards to specific locations within the city. But cities in close proximity to each other with wildly differing laws leads to unnecessary confusion. Which this law prevents.

With regards to the OP - yeah, that guy should have been carted off for a stern talking to at a minimum. Probably a ticket as well.

How would you ticket him? If the different cities cannot regulate access to parks, et al, then there is no basis for a ticket. If cities are required to post restrictions and limited to the types of restrictions they can enact, that serves the same purpose and the jerk can get a ticket should he try this again.

[alaskazimm]

How would you ticket him? If the different cities cannot regulate access to parks, et al, then there is no basis for a ticket. If cities are required to post restrictions and limited to the types of restrictions they can enact, that serves the same purpose and the jerk can get a ticket should he try this again.

Which is kind of what I'm saying - the city that has the park has a law saying that signs prohibiting guns carry the force of law, while the city the person is from says such signs don't carry the force of law, then confusion reigns. What is legal in one city is an arrestable offense in the next one over - how to keep up with that?
The ticketing would come from breach of peace or causing public disturbance which I understand most cities have laws in place and are pretty broad to allow officer discretion.

[Teallaura]

Okay, I think I see where the confusion is occurring. If the law prohibits any lower governments from enacting their own regulations then the city cannot enact an ordinance restricting access. No ordinance, no sign saying 'no guns' - ordinances are a city's regulatory power. A city cannot issue restrictions without the force of law (well, it could but they wouldn't mean anything and the guy still wouldn't get a ticket) - in order to regulate behavior it must issue an ordinance.

Yes, that means there's actually an ordinance on the books when you see city parks with 'keep off the grass' signs.

Saying 'nyahh nyahh, you can't stop me' is childish, but not disturbing the peace no matter how broadly you stretch it.

A law that prevents cities from restricting gun owners from carrying at all while allowing cities to regulate access serves the same purpose - when you see the little sign, the gun stays in the car. Simple.

[rogue06]

Yeah

And I remember reading that there was a city (in Michigan?) that passed a city ordinance that ALL homes must have firearms for protection.... I CERTAINLY don't want the LIBERALS to have guns!

The city that I live in has a similar law since 1982 in response to Morton Grove, Ill., which had outlawed gun ownership within the city limits. While our crime rate was not exactly high to begin with, it dropped by nearly 90% after its passage (the rest of the state experienced a 10% decrease). According to the current mayor, we enjoy "the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country" and it is definitely far below other metro Atlanta cities with similar populations. In contrast Morton Grove's crime rate jumped by over 15% the year after its passage while the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3%.

The law was essentially a symbolic effort exempting anyone who didn't want to own a firearm for practically any reason

Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating it.

[alaskazimm]

Okay, I think I see where the confusion is occurring. If the law prohibits any lower governments from enacting their own regulations then the city cannot enact an ordinance restricting access. No ordinance, no sign saying 'no guns' - ordinances are a city's regulatory power. A city cannot issue restrictions without the force of law (well, it could but they wouldn't mean anything and the guy still wouldn't get a ticket) - in order to regulate behavior it must issue an ordinance.

Yes, that means there's actually an ordinance on the books when you see city parks with 'keep off the grass' signs.

Saying 'nyahh nyahh, you can't stop me' is childish, but not disturbing the peace no matter how broadly you stretch it.

A law that prevents cities from restricting gun owners from carrying at all while allowing cities to regulate access serves the same purpose - when you see the little sign, the gun stays in the car. Simple.

OK I gotcha you now. Many areas are off limits while one is carrying, eg - post office, schools, day cares, etc, though this normally is state wide law rather than a city ordinance. In Alaska, signs prohibiting guns don't carry the force of law, though if the store owner asks you to leave and you don't then you can be charged with trespassing. Any other areas that are prohibited is the gun owners responsibility to know of. And this only works if the laws are the same statewide, rather than each city deciding.

[Cow Poke]

On the Internet, it pretty much means 'whatever I find reasonable' - which is, as you note, pretty useless. But in law, it does have a defined meaning - albeit not as technically defined as one might expect but that from necessity, not Internet style laziness.

In a courtroom, it is up to both sides to convince the Jury that what a "reasonable man" might or might not do.

[Jedidiah]

Cities do have and should have the authority to regulate use and access to public parks. The Second Amendment is not a license to carry any gun anywhere - nor has it EVER been.

And for the record, until the Court held differently a few years back and finally incorporated the silly thing, the states had EVERY right to regulate guns UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Being in the BoA does NOT automatically mean it applies to the states - the BoA didn't apply to the states AT ALL prior to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments added after the Civil War.

Constitutional Law: It's what's for breakfast....

As I said:

. . . or should not, have the authority to override the Constitution. . . or should not, have the authority to override the Constitution. . . . or should not, have the authority to override the Constitution.

[rogue06]

IIRC, various government jurisdictions can expand rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

[Jedidiah]

IIRC, various government jurisdictions can expand rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

But can they reduce them?

[Sparko]

I carry a gun on the internet all the time. You never know what kind of nuts you will run into.

[Teallaura]

In a courtroom, it is up to both sides to convince the Jury that what a "reasonable man" might or might not do.

No, it's the jury's duty to decide if the act was reasonable using the Reasonable Man - the opposing sides argue whether or not the act was reasonable (presuming they agree it occured).

[Teallaura]

OK I gotcha you now. Many areas are off limits while one is carrying, eg - post office, schools, day cares, etc, though this normally is state wide law rather than a city ordinance. In Alaska, signs prohibiting guns don't carry the force of law, though if the store owner asks you to leave and you don't then you can be charged with trespassing. Any other areas that are prohibited is the gun owners responsibility to know of. And this only works if the laws are the same statewide, rather than each city deciding.

I agree with the idea of uniformity - but as long as off limit areas are properly posted there's no reason that other jurisdictions cannot be allowed some leeway in regulating their locality.

[Teallaura]

As I said:

Which is dumb because a local government has the right to regulate access under the Constitution. The Second Amendment may conflict at times but it doesn't necessarily override.

[KingsGambit]

It is interesting that hardly anybody wants to take the First Amendment in as absolute terms as some do with the Second. Technically, one could make a case that things like obscenity laws, noise ordinances, laws against inciting violence and threats, etc. violate the wording of the First Amendment (and I know some libertarians actually do try to consistently argue this), but over the years, the courts have generally concluded that one's rights stop where they start to intrude on the rights of others.

[seanD]

It is interesting that hardly anybody wants to take the First Amendment in as absolute terms as some do with the Second. Technically, one could make a case that things like obscenity laws, noise ordinances, laws against inciting violence and threats, etc. violate the wording of the First Amendment (and I know some libertarians actually do try to consistently argue this), but over the years, the courts have generally concluded that one's rights stop where they start to intrude on the rights of others.

Because the Second Amendment, according to the founding fathers, was necessary to keep government under restraint. Call it paranoia, but that's what they argued, period. History also shows numerous times that the most tyrannical governments of the world rose to power after they seized civilian guns or managed to curtail the proliferation of guns. So the circumstances are slightly different between the two Amendments.