Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News What was NOT banned

  1. Aug 3, 2012 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In the run-up to the GOP convention in Tampa, the Mayor and City Council of Tampa has now banned the carrying, near the convention hall, of such potentially dangerous items as

    Air rifles
    BB guns
    Paintball guns
    Super-soakers and water cannons
    Any rope, wire, or chain longer than 6 feet
    Gas masks
    Light bulbs
    Glass bottles

    What was NOT banned:
    Real guns that shoot real bullets
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 3, 2012 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    phinds, thank you for the interesting news from Tampa, Florida regarding the ban on dangerous weapons outside the upcoming RNC. In all fairness, their Mayor and the Council wanted to ban guns outside the convention hall, but could not. They even petitioned Gov. Scott, who denied their request.

    “Florida Gov. Rick Scott is soundly rejecting a request from Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn to ban guns at the Republican National Convention.
    Buckhorn wrote Scott a two-page letter on Tuesday asking Scott to temporarily prohibit the types of weapons the city cannot regulate, including guns carried with a state concealed-weapons permit, the Tampa Bay Times reports.
    "Normally, licensed firearms carried in accordance with the Florida statute requirements do not pose a significant threat to the public," the mayor wrote. "However, in the potentially contentious environment surrounding the RNC, a firearm unnecessarily increases the threat of imminent harm and injury to the residents and visitors of the city."

    The message is clear for every visitor who plans to attend the convention: “Beware, this is Florida!” (with huge numbers of legal concealed weapons permits and strong "stand your ground laws."
  4. Aug 3, 2012 #3
    They are Republicans, so I don't see an issue. Either you believe in the right to legally carry or you don't. You can't turn your back on what you believe if you believe it is a fundimental Constitutional right. HOPEFULLY, the State did a good job screening the permit holders.
  5. Aug 3, 2012 #4
    Clearly, the motive for both of these decisions is to promote peaceful protest. I would feel safer in a crowd of Republicans or Democrats with CWP's than a crowd of OWS types with pipes or 2x4s. What I find objectionable are the "free speech zones" which are isolated and treat people like animals in a zoo. The solution could be to allow peaceful demonstrations with swift, decisive and, if necessary, brutal disposition of perpetrators of violence. Of course, that is exactly what a small percentage of the demonstrators are trying to provoke...to "prove" that they live in a police state. Whether it is an abuse of the 1st or 2nd amendment, nobody ever promised that having a free society would be easy or painless.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2012
  6. Aug 4, 2012 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Again the clash between sovereignty of the state versud the liberty of the individual.
  7. Aug 4, 2012 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How about it's an issue that brings into question the sanity of BOTH. I mean, really ... we're going to ban water pistols and not actual guns?
  8. Aug 4, 2012 #7
    Of all the weapons in the world, I think nunchucks might be the most overrated in terms of being dangerous. I don't know if it was the Ninja Turtles that did it, but they're actually illegal for people to own in certain states and countries.
    99% of the people who are in possession of nunchucks are more likely to hurt themselves than anyone else.
  9. Aug 4, 2012 #8


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    That's just what the Ninjas want you to think. http://files.myopera.com/debplatt/smiley/ninja.gif [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  10. Aug 4, 2012 #9
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  11. Aug 5, 2012 #10
    They don't have to ban these. Open carry is NOT allowed in Florida unless "engaged in, or going directly to and from, lawful Target Shooting, Hunting, Fishing, and Camping expeditions. FL Statutes 790.25(3)(h), (j), and (k)" CWPs in Florida are only issued for handguns, not rifles or shotguns.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  12. Aug 5, 2012 #11
    I think I know why they picked Florida to hold the convention. The weapons in the videos are legal anytime anywhere in AZ unless there is a ,no firearms, sign posted.

    It is really getting spooky here. A person can now CC without a permit and without weapons training.
  13. Aug 5, 2012 #12
    Legal concealed carry without a permit or weapons training has been in place in Vermont and Alaska for decades, maybe forever. Spooky? Perhaps they just have respect for the word "infringed".
  14. Aug 5, 2012 #13
    That bump firing IMO should be illegal. I am all about the Second Amendment and yes I know it isn't just about hunting, but automatic fire weapons are supposed to be illegal and gun enthusiasts have to do a lot of educating to people who don't otherwise know that you cannot just go and buy an assault rifle (automatic fire rifle). You cannot just easily convert a semi-automatic gun into an automatic fire gun either, as they have to be built according to specific regulations from the BATFE that make them difficult to convert. Any semi-automatic weapon that can be easily converted to automatic-fire is considered an automatic-fire weapon. To own an automatic fire weapon, you can own one so long as it is registered pre-1986, but ownership is a privilege, as machine guns (which includes assault rifles) is not covered under the definition of the word "arms" in the Second Amendment. You also have to go through fingerprinting, a background check, ATF approval, six to nine month waiting period, etc...plus buying one will set you back about $10K to $20K as they're rare.

    Bump firing gets around all of the above because they have a way to take a semi-automatic gun and make it where you can essentially do the equivalent of pull the trigger very rapidly. "Technically," it's not automatic fire as automatic fire means you pull the trigger once and it fires continuously, whereas this requires multiple trigger pulls but does them very rapidly, but in terms of being a weapon that can fire off rounds in rapid-succession, it most certainly is that. This could bring all manner of hell on the firearms community if some nut like a James Holmes gets a hold of one of these.

    "Arms" in the Second Amendment is defined as "weapons ordinary law-abiding citizens would be expected to muster to militia conscription with." So things like handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles. Machine guns (which fire rifle rounds continuously), which includes assault rifles and sub-machine guns (guns that fire pistol rounds on full-auto), bombs, battle tanks, attack helicopters, nuclear bombs, etc...all that kind of stuff is not covered under the word arms.

    The definition seeks a balance as when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, it wasn't about hunting, it was about citizens being able to be armed, with military weapons, to resist a tyrannical government. The problem is that back then, military weapons were muskets and cannon at the most. Today, military weapons can be anything from a rifle to weaponized smallpox. The gun-control community has said that the Second Amendment thus shouldn't cover any modern weapons, but that goes too far, as by that logic, one could argue that the 1st Amendment doesn't cover any modern communications medium.

    So the modern definition of basically handguns, shotguns, and semi-auto rifles is the happy balance as those are the arms you'd expect people to show up with when forming a militia. Bump-firing isn't technically, mechanically, a machine gun, but it simulates it, and that could be very bad for the Second Amendment in the future.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  15. Aug 5, 2012 #14
    Spooky yes spooky. For states that have always been CC it is probably no big deal. AZ has always been legal open carry. I have owned and carried weapons for the last 50 years.

    Yet when an arsenal of new weapons is legalized in a short period of time it is spooky. A person who has never fired a handgun may CC. I do not want to be close to that person.

    A person with an AR15 may legally hunt with a silencer on his firearm with no limit on the size of the magazine. That is a bit of an odd law because there is very little game in AZ that can legally be hunted with a .223 caliber.

    But then we wouldn't want to "infringe" on a guy who needs a silencer and a 100 round magazine on his AR15 to hunt possum.

    OK I can see where this is going...outta here
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook