WaterfowlForum.Net

I was thinking on the drive home about this, for some reason. Since I'm from MD, it would do no good, but I think it should still be this way.

Specifically, I was thinking about a gun in a vehicle, and how darn near every state is different, and it's on the traveller to figure out the laws of all states he passes through. That's bullshit, in my opinion. You should be covered by the laws of YOUR state while you're in the car. If you're allowed to have a concealed weapon in your pocket and a loaded rifle in the gun rack while at home, you should be able to do this while driving through Illinois, if you want.

As soon as you step out of the car, of course you're subject to that state's laws. But your car should be the same as a "traveling house" when it comes to laws. I'm not talking moving violations or anything like that, just the contents of your vehicle, whether a gun, kid not in a car seat, bumper height, whatever. The laws where the vehicle is tagged should be the ones which apply.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure a vehicle is already treated like a house. Not your driving, but what's in it. Can't search without a warrant/probable cause, etc. states don't require your insurance to meet their standards, only the standards of where it's tagged. Why the hell should anything else in/about the vehicle be different?

That's a good question. I only travel regularly to CA and I leave my gun at home. For AZ it is in the door always.

gila-river wrote:That's a good question. I only travel regularly to CA and I leave my gun at home. For AZ it is in the door always.

But CA is where you'll probably need it the most.

3legged_lab wrote:

gila-river wrote:That's a good question. I only travel regularly to CA and I leave my gun at home. For AZ it is in the door always.

But CA is where you'll probably need it the most.

True dat
I am however not familiar with their laws and my ccw is no bueno in CA so I leave it just out of fear honestly.

Seems like that should be an extension of the castle doctrine. I know here at least your vehicle and place of work is considered part of your 'castle'. I get what you're saying about it covering the same from state to state and would have to agree with you.

assateague wrote:If you're allowed to have a concealed weapon in your pocket and a loaded rifle in the gun rack while at home, you should be able to do this while driving through Illinois, if you want.

So you're in favor of federal preemption of gun laws?

Awesome idea! Road Trip! I'm going to go get my 215 card and a shit load of pot (personal use only) and toke up in front of the capitals of all 49 states!!

Olly wrote:

assateague wrote:If you're allowed to have a concealed weapon in your pocket and a loaded rifle in the gun rack while at home, you should be able to do this while driving through Illinois, if you want.

So you're in favor of federal preemption of gun laws?

No Feds need to stay out of everyone's business.

Olly wrote:

assateague wrote:If you're allowed to have a concealed weapon in your pocket and a loaded rifle in the gun rack while at home, you should be able to do this while driving through Illinois, if you want.

So you're in favor of federal preemption of gun laws?

I missed the part where I said anything whatsoever about the federal government.

assateague wrote:

Olly wrote:

assateague wrote:If you're allowed to have a concealed weapon in your pocket and a loaded rifle in the gun rack while at home, you should be able to do this while driving through Illinois, if you want.

So you're in favor of federal preemption of gun laws?

I missed the part where I said anything whatsoever about the federal government.

Who else would enforce those rules across state lines?

The cop that pulls you over, of course. Still not sure how the fed govt got insinuated into what I was saying at all.

I'm not sure where the confusion is.

assateague wrote:The cop that pulls you over, of course. Still not sure how the fed govt got insinuated into what I was saying at all.

because otherwise trying to get all 49 states to agree with your proposal would like beating your head against the wall

assateague wrote:The cop that pulls you over, of course. Still not sure how the fed govt got insinuated into what I was saying at all.

so I would be required to know the gun laws of all the other states?

Redbeard wrote:

assateague wrote:The cop that pulls you over, of course. Still not sure how the fed govt got insinuated into what I was saying at all.

so I would be required to know the gun laws of all the other states?

Yup!! You've got nothing better to do with yor time.

assateague wrote:The cop that pulls you over, of course. Still not sure how the fed govt got insinuated into what I was saying at all.

So you're in favor of state A being able to tell the people within state B what they can and cannot do?

Redbeard wrote:

assateague wrote:The cop that pulls you over, of course. Still not sure how the fed govt got insinuated into what I was saying at all.

so I would be required to know the gun laws of all the other states?

Yep. Although I'm pretty sure that your smart phone works in your patrol car Would take about a 30 second Google search.

Olly wrote:

assateague wrote:The cop that pulls you over, of course. Still not sure how the fed govt got insinuated into what I was saying at all.

So you're in favor of state A being able to tell the people within state B what they can and cannot do?

Just to be clear before I answer, you're off of the "federal preemption" kick now, right?

assateague wrote:

Just to be clear before I answer, you're off of the "federal preemption" kick now, right?

No, now answer my question.

assateague wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

assateague wrote:The cop that pulls you over, of course. Still not sure how the fed govt got insinuated into what I was saying at all.

so I would be required to know the gun laws of all the other states?

Yep. Although I'm pretty sure that your smart phone works in your patrol car Would take about a 30 second Google search.

I think enforcing a google law might be a bad idea

Olly wrote:

assateague wrote:

Just to be clear before I answer, you're off of the "federal preemption" kick now, right?

No, now answer my question.

Nigga, please.

assateague wrote:

Nigga, please.

I want the record to show that Assa was unable to answer my question without proving that he in fact is either for the removal of states rights or allowing the federal government to have preemption over the individual gun laws within each of our very different states.

In other words Assa loves the Federal govt and wants to live in the warm embrace of a universal society.

Also nanner nanner boo boo

Could we please move this to its correct forum, so I will never have to see it again. Thanks. This is the blind, where all the shenanigans happen. If you guys want to "debate", take it somewhere else.

Bwahahahahaha

Assa consider yourself warned

"This is my thread, and I demand it stay on topic".


That's all I have to do, right? Or do I have to whine, and post pictures of my boxes of tampons?

Bootlipkiller wrote:Assa consider yourself warned

Yes that was definitely all a joke....

Hahahahaha just do whatever MT did in his sourdough flapjack thread

Yep, I think Tiler is right this is pretty controversial.
Witht regard to towed vehicles, it seems that way already. I tow my flat trailer or boat and trailer from Oregon through several states that require plates. They pull me over and ask about trailer plates. I tell them oregon doesn't require plates on a trailer and contents of that size and they say(drum roll).....Okay, have a nice day.(yep, cops really say that to me without issuing tickets or pat down)