• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

military open carry

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
There is nothing wrong with entering into a socialistic arrangement voluntarily. It's called a contract.
contracts still must comply to applicable laws, and it's very different when the government is the contracting party versus a private entity.

currently federal law prohibits the department of defense from enacting or enforcing any order involving off base firearms possession....
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
contracts still must comply to applicable laws, and it's very different when the government is the contracting party versus a private entity.
Excellent point. I could see the justification for preventing all sorts of contractual arrangements with government that might be allowed otherwise.

Guns are a great example… I can't see limiting the right of private employers to require their employees to be unarmed. The government, however, has no rights, so it clearly can't have a right to require anything at all of its employees. With no right to appeal to, there is left only reason, and I can see no reason to allow the government to disarm its soldiers off-base.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
contracts still must comply to applicable laws, and it's very different when the government is the contracting party versus a private entity.

currently federal law prohibits the department of defense from enacting or enforcing any order involving off base firearms possession....
Actually, that is an example of the government promising not to do something, not really being prohibited from doing it. Tomorrow, the government could unilaterally repeal that law, immediately followed by commanders, another arm of that same government, barring carry by its members.

The only legal way to enjoin the federal government is via the Constitution (which one might argue already enjoins the government from telling soldiers that they cannot carry "off-duty"). Laws the government passes prohibiting itself from taking a particular action are kinda silly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
My, my, my - you bite off a big chunk there. Hope you have no trouble swallowing it.
I don't quite know what you mean by this, but there is a distinction between laws the government created by the Constitution passes to restrict itself, and Constitutional restrictions which are (theoretically, at least) brought into being by the People and the States which created the Constitution and, through it, the federal government. Any protection we gain by the passage of a law can be lost by the repeal of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
The GFSZ Act was intended to protect and if it is repealed will those that the law was intended to protect then be unprotected?
The road to hell was paved with good intentions.

We all know that the GFSZ has the opposite effect from what it is reported to do.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,741
Location
Concord, NC
I don't quite know what you mean by this, but there is a distinction between laws the government created by the Constitution passes to restrict itself, and Constitutional restrictions which are (theoretically, at least) brought into being by the People and the States which created the Constitution and, through it, the federal government. Any protection we gain by the passage of a law can be lost by the repeal of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
+1
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
well since eye95 thinks the government can contract away your rights... what if you buy a plot of property and want to build a house, and the county planning board won't issue you a building permit unless you grant the city the right to search your house at any time w/o a warrant, would that be a voluntary contract and not a law or rule?
 
Top