What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
218 Comments
- Janinco, on 02/19/2009, -15/+100Way to go!
- Landthatilove, on 02/19/2009, -10/+82Wow. Good thing the court "allows" it.
- radiofrequency, on 02/19/2009, -14/+81The people can keep and bear arms without infringement. In the car, in the house, on the street. It's in the Constitution.
- Dwolf71, on 02/19/2009, -14/+72Nice. My company has a poilicy against firearms in your vehicle on property. I know at least one co-worker (concealed carry license holder) who was nearly car-jacked on the way to work at 2am. Luckily he got away unharmed, but he could have been hurt or dead and it would have been the fault of our employer's policy that won't let him carry a weapon to and from work.
- MrsSpooky, on 02/20/2009, -13/+56What part of "shall not be infringed" do these morons not understand?
- inactive, on 02/19/2009, -12/+47We got this passed in the state of Georgia several months ago. Good for you Oklahoma!
- pattty51, on 02/19/2009, -12/+47Good news!
- Tyrghast, on 02/20/2009, -2/+29That's funny considering most gun owners here and probably in Oklahoma have a firearm in their car quite frequently anyway.
- inactive, on 02/19/2009, -7/+34To get around the ban on guns IN vehicles, I mounted a tank turret on my Hummer.
- 45superman, on 02/19/2009, -6/+27Oohh--I can't wait to hear Paul Helmke's anguished bleating!
- Otto, on 02/20/2009, -1/+22All citizens are part of the militia. That's what a militia is. Boy.
- mildlyEccentric, on 02/20/2009, -7/+27note to self: don't drive like an ***** in oklahoma
- RuffRidr, on 02/20/2009, -9/+27He should have filed a lawsuit against his company for failing to protect him to and from work. I think he would have a fairly good shot at winning.
- Landthatilove, on 02/20/2009, -0/+18What's really funny is that you don't get it, and think that what you said made good sense. Don't get me wrong, I know what you were TRYING to say. It's just that you don't seem to have a clue as to how dumb it was.
- spyd3rweb, on 02/20/2009, -1/+19It takes 15 seconds to reload a musket, less if the British army is shooting at you.
- Mothrog, on 02/20/2009, -0/+18That argument's gone the way of the dodo. See DC v. Heller.
- Otto, on 02/20/2009, -4/+22If his company's policy prevented him from legally defending himself, then yes, his company is at fault and legally liable for any injuries.
- emmettgolf, on 02/20/2009, -2/+17Federal courts have determined that parking lots, sidewalks, are public ease ways to allow them to approach private property. This allows you to do things like pass out leaflets, carry signs, carry guns, etc. Preventing you from carrying a weapon onto a parking lot, would infringe on your right to carry a gun. The inside of a private building or even the walk way up to it, are different matters.
- Ferretman, on 02/20/2009, -6/+20Excellent news!
- Landthatilove, on 02/20/2009, -2/+14Um. Yea. If you're ever getting mugged at gunpoint, or if you're in a mall and some guy just starts randomly shooting the people around you, and some gun toting second amendment nutcase pulls out their peice and shuts them down to keep them from killing you, the ones you love, or even a total stranger standing next to you, just hang your head, thank them, and go clean your pants out.
- RuffRidr, on 02/20/2009, -2/+14Oh, I'm sure it will involve shootouts in the parking lots from disgruntled workers who would have never thought to bring the gun to work against company policy anyway.
- jivatmanx, on 02/20/2009, -1/+13I imagine in this case the car is considered an extension of your person.
- yuppiexj, on 02/20/2009, -2/+13In most states your vehicle is an extension of your domicile, same as a tent when camping, subject to the same protections and legal rights as your home.
You have a right to privacy in your vehicle. it is your vehicle, your vehicle has no right to search it.
If fired for refusal of said search, you have a very good shot of winning a wrongful dismissal suit - kosmoX, on 02/20/2009, -2/+13I think they read "not" as "most certainly".
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -1/+12Because everyone knows that criminals don't carry guns into places where they are banned... it would be breaking the law!
/s - goffy59, on 02/20/2009, -8/+18If anyone has a problem with this; go ***** yourself. The second amendment is there for a reason.
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -6/+16This explains why all the news outlets are reporting hundreds of thousands of random shootings in Oklahoma today by otherwise law-abiding people.
----cue sound of crickets----
Oh. Well. Maybe they will. Tomorrow or something. - inactive, on 02/20/2009, -1/+11Non-fatal means are less effective than guns. And of course, who do you really think is going to win, a criminal with a Glock or a citizen with some pepper spray? Get real. Self defense is about defending your life, and when your life is on the line, you don't want to know if your stun gun is going to get the job done.
- cawpin, on 02/20/2009, -2/+12No, they didn't require you to drive. They ARE requiring people to go unarmed.
- Mothrog, on 02/20/2009, -2/+12I guess the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet then.
- hughesj919, on 02/20/2009, -5/+15I live in Oklahoma, and I promise you this is just a formality.
- cawpin, on 02/20/2009, -0/+10@enantiodromia - Well regulated means well supplied in the context of the amendment and, as Otto said, all able bodied citizens are part of the militia.
- ButterLoyalist, on 02/20/2009, -5/+14They couldn't before? WTF?
- Landthatilove, on 02/20/2009, -1/+10Yes. As long as you leave your gun and your tool box in your car, you're not trying to fix or shoot anyone on their property.
- ExSlashdotter, on 02/20/2009, -0/+9@graeh
The third amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers (military personnel) in private homes without the owner's consent *during peacetime*. It makes quartering legally permissible in wartime only, and then only in accordance with law. The Founding Fathers' intention in writing this amendment was to prevent the recurrence of soldiers being quartered in private property as was done in Colonial America by the British military under the Quartering Act before the American Revolution (1775-1776).
How does that somehow put the second amendment "in context". I sure as hell don't want US marines forcing their way in and taking up residence in my house or commandeering my vehicles during *peacetime*. - Landthatilove, on 02/20/2009, -2/+11I could post real life examples, but why bother. You seem to be intellectually challenged. A grasp of reality has surpassed your feeble mind, and you've fallen into the liberal mental disorder which tells you that guns are the problem, when all that still cling to sanity know that it's humans. You poor soul.
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -3/+12I doubt "reloading speed" was the determining factor in the second amendment. And I'm surprised you think a majority of the population aren't capable of owning guns yet are capable of driving cars, a device which kills far more people annually.
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -0/+8You can always carry a concealed pistol and let it be a judgment call when to use it. The point is, you CAN'T predict what's going to happen when you walk down the street. Someone might rob you for your wallet, another might want to go on a murderous rampage. Why not just have the one weapon that's as close to a guarantee of defense as possible?
- Landthatilove, on 02/20/2009, -2/+10Nah. But I can see how you'd get that from it.
- jayselle, on 02/20/2009, -2/+10I'm glad to see the federal court uphold the will of the State Legislature and Governor. The first judge in the court of appeals was clearly legislating from the bench with his own opinion.
I'm a firm believer of property rights and this is a big gray area but as long as the vehicle is locked in your own private vehicle then I don't see the problem. - OwdenBowden, on 02/20/2009, -0/+8way to go Okies - now if we can just have all the other states in the Union do the same thing we might just have something here.
- peepnklown, on 02/20/2009, -1/+9I liked the misinformation that the Court ‘allows’ Oklahoma workers to have guns in vehicles like we the people do not have the right to arm ourselves.
- maz2331, on 02/20/2009, -1/+9I like small companies. Our policy is that you should have a pistol in your desk.
- jawagas, on 02/20/2009, -6/+14Nice Shot!
- Kadane, on 02/20/2009, -7/+15Another Lib judge (Kern) bites the dust. Finally one for our side.
- maz2331, on 02/20/2009, -1/+9@Cag
It won't be the "guntoting second amendment nutcase" who died in that situation. Quite a few of them are military veterans who are trained in the use of weapons and tactics and/or have been raised from a very young age around weapons and aren't keen on having a bullet hit themselves.
I live in a generally very low-crime area, so I have no need to pack my 10mm Auto around. If the environment were different, first I'd look into moving, and if that was not possible, then the Glock would most certainly become the thing I never left home without.
I'm pretty good with it. I can draw from concealment, spin 180 degrees, and put two shots into the "head" of a target at 10 yards within two seconds of a signal. - elliotys, on 02/20/2009, -1/+8I think you meant. . .
"Good news everyone!" - gyrfalcon, on 02/20/2009, -1/+8If you're driving your PERSONAL car and get into an accident while WORKING your work should/will cover your injuries. If you're driving to work and NOT YET WORKING, they are not liable to cover anything.
If your employee gave you a COMPANY CAR and told you not to transport firearms in it, they might have a legitimate rational and rights in that regard.
If it's your own personal car it doesn't matter if you're working or not...you should be able to carry whatever you want (legally) regardless of what company policy is. - goffy59, on 02/20/2009, -3/+10Are you some kind of sheep?
- anniegirl51, on 02/20/2009, -9/+16WOO HOO!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 221 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is