More GOP/Gun Nut Madness in Ohio

[MrBenchley]

"A bill passed by the state Legislature that allows gun dealers to open shops in their homes has some local officials up in arms.
"How could anybody in their right mind think it was appropriate for a gun shop to open up in a neighborhood?" said Bellevue City Councilman Tom Ratterman.
The legislation, which exempts gun businesses from most zoning laws, sailed through both houses of the General Assembly last week, passing by a 77-17 vote in the House and a 34-4 margin in the Senate.
"Gun businesses should be treated the same way as any other business," Stine said.
Even a small gun shop could affect property values for surrounding houses, Guidugli said. "That's the reason for zoning," he said. "There's a lot of businesses you wouldn't want next door." "

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/04/05/loc_loc2gun.html

[Superfly]

1. Cleveland webcams...

Streets are suprisingly devoid of blood.

Link

[MrBenchley]

2. Gee, fly....

You mean you need more gun klillings to tell you armed nutcases prowling the streets is a bad idea?

That's so pweshus.

[FatSlob]

21. Everybody agrees that nutcases shouldn't be armed

But law abiding citizens have the choice. Nice job on fact checking before you posted. Next time, make sure you get the state and political party right. You might also want to make sure that it wasn't in GITN a week ago.

[MrBenchley]

43. Gee, fat slob...

We've got a whole active thread where the RKBA crowd is screaming otherwise...

"Even a formal diagnosis like schizophrenia does not necessarily mean a person is not competent to responsibly and safely own a gun....Usually, the best judge of mental acuity is be the subject himself. Let him decide whether to purchase or not, and deal with the rare instances of sociopathic gun ownership as they present themselves....Not everybody who has a mentall illness is incompetent to own guns."

[FatSlob]

48. And if a frog had wings...

By the way, remember, you ought to get the state and political party right when posting. It makes you look bad when you don't fact check.

[MrBenchley]

78. Gee, winged frogs would be a blessing

compared to some of the vermin that pitch bogus "gun rights" horseshit.

[FatSlob]

80. Nice argument.

I'm sure you did real well in debate class. Did they teach you to fact check?

[MrBenchley]

81. Glad you liked it...

It beats screeching in eunuch-like outrage "genitalia reference!" in order to try to disrupt the thread...

[FatSlob]

83. You've got it wrong again, bucko.

It is to point out a lack of substance. Good day. :hi:

[MrBenchley]

85. Gee, fat slob....I pegged it exactly

[FatSlob]

87. You agree that your posts lack substance?

That's an admission!

[MrBenchley]

89. Nope, I agree yours do

[el_gato]

22. your mythical armed nutcases prowling the streets

your better run and hide benchy

scaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!
:scared:

[MrBenchley]

44. Gee, gato, nothing mythical about them...

[el_gato]

52. gee bench if you say so...

should I hide in my closet so the scary people don't get me?
:scared: :scared: :scared:

[MrBenchley]

77. Hell, gato, come out of the closet if you want...

[el_gato]

104. it's not me that's paranoid and scared of my fellow citizens

It's also not me that wants big brother to have total control.
It's also not me who is an enemy of liberty.

[CO Liberal]

114. You Seem To Be An Enemy....

...of people who post opinions that disagree with yours.

[el_gato]

117. your the one that calls anybody who owns a gun SCUM etc.

you constantly project


not my problem

[CO Liberal]

123. Not ME, Gato

People with guns are only scum if they're scum to begin with - otherwise, they're just people with guns.

[FatSlob]

126. So, what is wrong with

the "just people" carrying concealed? I do thank you, however, for your statement that people are scum only if they are scum to begin with.

[CO Liberal]

148. Because It Only Takes a Split Second...

...to change a "just" person into a killer.

[FatSlob]

182. So you favor prior restraint?

Do you favor the elimination of freedom because something might happen? Well, the facts are in, and the gloom and doom of the antis has not happened.

[CO Liberal]

183. And What If It Does????

How do you pro-gunners propose putting the CCW genie back in the bottle?

[FatSlob]

184. Wayne, the sky isn't going to fall in Indiana after 80 years.

That is how long they have had it. Why do you think that the hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens currently carrying are going to go collectively nuts?

[CO Liberal]

185. All It Takes Is a Few Going Nuts....

...to result in dead people.

[MrBenchley]

187. Appalling isn't it?

Indiana and Ohio already have gun death rates similar to a third world country...and the rationale that this idiotic measure does anything to cut that rate has been long ago exposed as deliberate fraud by the gun industry.

One wonders how many people would have to be shot and killed they want to see before they admit there's blood in the streets.

[FatSlob]

189. You've got that right,

a few people going nuts can result in dead people. Hopefully a CCWer will be there to end the carnage. Question, you're in Colorado, right? When did CCW go into effect there?

[CO Liberal]

191. I Have No Idea

Last I heard, cities like Denver were fighting it in the courts, because they claimed it violated the "home rule" provisions of the State Constitution. But I believe some sheriffs in the more rural counties have started issuing permits.

[FatSlob]

193. Could you check it out, perhaps?

I'd be interested in knowing. I was thinking maybe you could call a friend who is knows more about the subject. I'll see what I can find online.

[CO Liberal]

186. And How About MY Freedom....

...to not have to worry that the asshole next to me might have a gun?

[zbdent]

4. as much as they were before the "ccw" legislation

.

[liberalhistorian]

7. I talked to a local FBI agent yesterday

(their office is in my office building), and she, along with every single policeman, deputy, and other law enforcement official I've talked to, is totally against concealed carry and other things, and would likely be against this. They're saying there's going to be an increase in accidental shootings and "instant rage" shootings, and that people need far more than just 12 hours of firearms training. But then, what the hell do they know, right?:puke: :puke: :puke:

[el_gato]

23. your talking about the same FBI that has murdered activists

an has a history of preventing true democracy in America

hmmm....doesn't surprise me you'd think so highly of them

[liberalhistorian]

29. I'm not just talking about the FBI,

I'm talking about my local police and sheriff's departments and the state highway patrol. But what the hell do they know, anyway, right?

And I don't consider a country awash in millions of guns, where millions of citizens have spoken out against unrestricted guns-everywhere-all-the-time-no-matter-what ownership, and who are tired of being painted as anti-American jack-booted thugs because we just want some sense as far as gun ownership and responsibility/safety measures are concerned. and where such citizens are totally ignored and labeled hysterical, to be "truly democratic."

[Columbia]

31. You have to remember

That many police agencies like to think of themselves as the only legitimate protector of society. It'd be nice if they could be everywhere at once, but even Superman couldn't do that. The rest of us need a way to protect ourselves when the police are unable to be there. Also, the thing about living in a democratic republic, is that the minority's rights are supposed to be protected even against the majority's wishes.

[el_gato]

32. you want to restrict my freedom and then act like a victim

I have no sympathy for you.

[liberalhistorian]

38. How am I restricting your freedom?

I am for the rights of law-abiding citizens with no history of mental illness or felony convictions or domestic violence to own guns. I do not want to, and am not interested in, taking away such citizens guns, despite the hysteria of the gun lobby. With freedom comes responsiblity. YOU are the ones restricting MY freedom when I have to worry about who has a gun and the extremely easy availability of guns everywhere today.

[el_gato]

41. you want the government to inject it's nose into my business

your paranoia is not my problem and has nothing to do with me

[CO Liberal]

174. Given The Choice....

...between believing what an FBI agent says or what you say, el_gato, I'd go with the FBI agent any day.

[DoNotRefill]

153. There's a reason why....

What happens if crime disappears from the country?

How many cops would we need then?

The police have a direct financial interest in seeing to it that crime flourishes. Without crime, there's no need for cops, and therefore they'd be out of work.

[TX-RAT]

154. Now thats funny

And completely ridiculous.

[DoNotRefill]

155. How do you figure?

If there was no crime problem, why would we need such a massive police force?

If there was no crime, why would we need to keep a million people in prison? If we didn't have a million people in prison, why would we need correctional officers? If there was no crime, why would we need so many criminal courts?

Why is the War on Some Drugs being fought? No matter what, there will always be drug abuse. Working on incarcerating offenders rather than rehabilitating them is nothing but a public work program for law enforcement.

All too often, "getting tough on crime" means more money and more power for police officers. Given that, how can you say that the police do NOT have an interest in seeing that crime flourishes? Without crime, there is no reason to have a police force. It's their reason for being.

[TX-RAT]

159. Why the hate for law enforcement?

[DoNotRefill]

164. It's not hate for Law Enforcement...

I'm ex-LE. I'm just realistic as to the politics of the situation, and the motives that drive many LE agencies.

[TX-RAT]

195. Was this the policy in your dept?

[DoNotRefill]

198. Was it in the manual? No.

was it in practice? yes.

Think about traffic cops. Who gets promoted....the guy who writes 50 tickets a month, or the guy who writes 500 tickets a month? There wasn't a quota system explicitly spelled out in department policy, but it was implicitly there. If you didn't generate enough citations, you got figuratively smacked.

[TX-RAT]

199. Would that be why you say ex law enforcement

It was not my practice nor any of the agency's that we worked with to promote on a monetary basis. This is the same old accusations I've heard for years.

[DoNotRefill]

202. I left for a variety of reasons, and that was one of them.

I'm NOT saying that there was an outright "tickets for promotion" scheme, where you'd get promoted for issuing, say, your 100,000th citation. But the level of citation production was viewed as an indicator of officer productivity, which WAS used as a means of evaluating officer performance. If you didn't generate enough citations, you were viewed as loafing or "retired in place".

[iverglas]

162. really, I do think

... that before ascribing these kinds of ulterior motives:

The police have a direct financial interest in seeing to it that crime flourishes. Without crime, there's no need for cops, and therefore they'd be out of work.

to anybody, one ought to have, and present, at least some basis for what one is saying.

Good grief. Otherwise, one could just say that when Moses proscribed the worshipping of graven images, he obviously was just trying to put graven image makers out of business in his own financial interest.

It just isn't fair play to impugn anyone's integrity without some kind of foundation.


What happens if crime disappears from the country?

And c'mon now ... are you seriously telling us that the measure that the police in question object to -- authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms -- is going to make crime disappear?? What seems to have gone wrong?


Now, here is a source whose integrity I would say is much more open to being impugned prima facie, and whose motives for what he is saying are perhaps a little more obvious:

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9910-talking.html

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on and I'll pull the trigger <without a safety lock>. We'll see who wins." (Mobster Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, interviewed by Howard Blum.)
-- Vanity Fair, September 1999

Now, if you were a mobster, and you really did *not* want to see firearms control implemented, what might be the best tack you could take?

Well, *I* would say: endorse it. Then lots of really dim people might just say "eek, gun control is endorsed by mobsters, so it must be a very bad thing!"

Kind of like how some people might say "eek, carrying concealed firearms is opposed by cops, so it must be a very good thing!"

Gosh, if the cops were as smart as Sammy The Bull, they'd be endorsing the carrying of concealed firearms, so that everybody who doesn't like cops (a strangely large sub-set of whom do like the carrying of concealed firearms, and vice versa) might think that maybe it wasn't such a good thing after all ...

Ah, the dangers of ad personam argument.

.

[DoNotRefill]

165. Heh...

I base my statements upon first hand experience. Been there, Done that.

Don't think LE is driven by money? Look at the drug forfeiture situation. For every dollar they confiscate, WITHOUT getting a conviction, they get a fixed amount of it. A cash commission, if you will.

Given this, how can you say that they DON'T have a financial incentive for crime to flourish? The more drug crime flourishes, the more assets the drug dealers accumulate. The more drug dealers accumulate, the more the police can seize. The more they seize, the fatter their coffers become. This isn't even some tenuous connection, it's a direct correlation computed by a formula between how much they seize, and how much of it they keep. PD seizes a million bucks, they keep X amount. Police Chief wants to know how much his department's "take" is? He looks at how much they've seized, divides it by a certain percentage, and it's virtually money in the bank. We're talking a straight-line computation.

[iverglas]

166. okey dokey

Now, can you do the straight-line computation for what the takings are per sexual assault, or bicycle theft, or spousal homicide, or bank robbery, or child battering?

I'm afraid that I'm just not seeing the financial incentive for law enforcement authorities to want all those crimes to flourish.

You suggest that they would intentionally advocate policies -- and maybe engage in actions? (if not, why not?) -- that would cause crimes to flourish, based on the fact of the financial benefits of detecting one particular type of crime.

Is a law authorizing the concealed carrying of firearms likely to have an adverse effect on drug trafficking? That, after all -- a law authorizing the concealed carrying of firearms -- is the law that was raised as one that cops oppose, and the assertion that cops oppose measures that would diminish crime was made in response to that particular reaction by cops.

And I'm really just not seeing how your chosen f'r instance has anything to do with the assertion that cops oppose laws authorizing the concealed carrying of firearms because they don't want crime to diminish. I'm smelling herring.

.

[DoNotRefill]

170. I think you'll find....

that many cops are interested in "putting away bad people", not necessarily "putting away people who do bad things". There are plenty of cases of this, for example, the situation in Texas where the police in a small town framed a large percentage of the minority population for drug offenses in a case which got much media attention. In the minds of those police officers, apparently "minority status"="bad people".

If the overall crime rate drops dramatically, there's less interest in law and order with the regular populace, wouldn't you agree? I assume you saw Bowling for Columbine. One of the major themes of that movie was that we live in a society with an inordinate fear of crime. Without that fear of crime, why would we need so many police officers? The police are people too...they want opportunities to advance, and that often means an increase in the total number of police. It's like the old British military toast: "To bloody wars and sickly seasons." It's better to be able to advance due to an overall increase in staffing rather than from your superiors dying, isn't it?

Let me run this by you. Let's say that Canada's overall crime rate dropped 50%. What result would be likely for Canada's police forces? Would they get more or less money to fight crime? Now let's look at the other side. What result if Canada's overall crime rate rose 50%? More or less funding for the police departments?

If there's less crime, there's less need for police, just as when there's a war on, militaries grow, and when wars end, they inevitably shrink. This is basic stuff here.

[TX-RAT]

194. Confiscate without a conviction?

Would you have any info to back that up.

[DoNotRefill]

197. actually, yes.

Google turned up the following:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp
http://www.fear.org/menuidx2.html
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/corrupt.htm
http://www.theindependent.com/stories/112499/new_moneyfight24.html

There's an absolute TON of stuff out there on this. How much do you want?

[TX-RAT]

200. Mostly federal cases

The sources you gave I'm unfamiliar with. I do know that Louisiana tried something similar to what you described, but were forced to stop the program.

[DoNotRefill]

201. The way it works....

is if the cops (Federal and State or Municipal) see something that they THINK is the result of drug profits, they can seize it. In order for the person to get it back, they must file suit against the agency, and PROVE that it was NOT the product of drug activity. The burden of proof is upon the person who had the property seized.

The net result is that a boatload of stuff is seized (usually cash), and it's too expensive to go after the acency which seized it. Of course, those people who DO actually try to get their stuff back come under heightened scrutiny by the cops, who have been known to do all kinds of bogus stuff. Don't believe me? You're in Louisiana, right? Remember the case where a NOPD officer had a police brutality complaint filed against him, and then proceeded to have the complaintant murdered? Later, it came out that he was under investigation by the feds for other things, and they recorded the entire thing, including the officer talking on his cellphone to the shooter, and identifying the victim. The person who filed the complaint is still dead, last time I checked. Or how about the NOPD officer who robbed the restaurant, executed a bunch of the workers, then left, put her uniform back on, and then responded to the call? Have they executed her yet?

I don't envy you being in LA, it has some of the most corrupt police in the USA.

[TX-RAT]

203. Not in LA.......Texas

Why do you assume all law enforcement is corrupt, based on the criminal activities of a few. I'm beginning to understand why your ex law enforcement.

[DoNotRefill]

204. Not all LEOs are corrupt...

but a disturbingly large percentage are.

I'd remind you of one of Mr. Murphy's Laws of Combat:

"Once is an accident. Twice is happenstance. Three times is enemy action."

There are systemic and institutionalized problems with LE in this country. It's no secret.

[TX-RAT]

206. This is going nowhere.

So far the only info you've given me as proof are 4 rather anti law enforcement web sites, a reference to bowling for Columbine,and now a reference to Murphy's Laws Of Combat. If I'm going to take you seriously you'll have to better than that.

[DoNotRefill]

208. You can lead a horse to water...

but you can't make him drink.

C'est la vie, c'est la guerre, c'est no more.

[MrBenchley]

167. There's no statement too absurd for the RKBA crowd...

Nor do they care who they slander or impugn to protect their sacred fetish object.

But then this is evidently someone who actually thinks crime will disappear if only we give one of the scummiest industries around free reign...

[liberalhistorian]

3. God Almighty, that has to be the

dumbest, stupidest, most ridiculous, ludicrous thing I've ever seen, and this Ohioan has seen plenty of dumb, stupid, ridiculous, ludicrous things from the neanderthal caveman repuke wingnut legislature that's taken over the state (actually, that stupid, ignorant Ohioans have allowed to take over the state).

I DON'T WANT A GUN SHOP ON MY STREET! I don't even want to have to deal with people carrying concealed weapons everywhere I go (you just can't get away from the gun madness anymore, no matter what you do), but I was prepared to deal with it. Now I have to worry about THIS shit?

Yes, people have the right to own guns, but goddamnit, as with every other right, there have to be some limits to the madness. Our state is going straight to hell in almost every area, economically, educationally, environmentally, young people and professionals can't get out of here fast enough, and THIS is what the fucking legislature is focused on (along with preventing those evil, satanic gay marriages as well, of course)? GET ME OUT OF HERE!

[MrBenchley]

5. You will notice that the gun nuts

seem to think their fetish object should not be subject to any law....

[liberalhistorian]

12. Yes, I know, and it makes

me crazy. They try to paint us as anti-gun and wanting to take everyone's guns away if we make even a peep against anything like this, or if we try to pass even the smallest, simplest safety measure, when they know that's not true and that we do NOT want to take everyone's guns away.

I resent having to deal with worrying about who's carrying a weapon now, and I resent that I'm seen as anti-American and hysterical because of it. I'm tired of being surrounded by guns and this country literally swimming in guns and yet the gun nuts would have you believe that they're somehow in danger of losing all their guns and that any safety/responsiblity measure, no matter how simple or small, means their guns will be taken away.

I don't want to have to worry about my son's safety at school now that that damned concealed carry has passed, I already worry about him enough. But the gun nuts don't care, nothing matters to them except making sure any guns are available anywhere, anytime, to anyone.

[Columbia]

24. I'm confused

Weren't you for concealed carry? Or was this someone else I'm thinking of? :shrug:

[asthmaticeog]

6. I'm confused

Newport's in Kentucky, no? And a KY judge is cited, along with Ohio pols. Cinci is close to Kentucky, true enough, but where the hell is this story even from?

[FatSlob]

16. The Enquirer serves Cincy and Northern KY

The story is about Kentucky.

[asthmaticeog]

27. Thank you for clarifying that for me. n/t

[FatSlob]

8. Uh, wrong state, Bench

It's Kentucky.

[Township75]

9. With a vote like 77-17, and 34-3...

it seems as if more than a few Dems were in support of this.

Gun rights...it's catching on!

[liberalhistorian]

14. Oh, please,

like gun rights were ever or will ever be in any danger to begin with, get real!!!

[FatSlob]

10. This was in GITN days ago, why repost

Please lock this dupe.

[RoeBear]

17. I'd be begging to get this locked...

...what an embarrassment!

[FatSlob]

20. It was on GITN about a week ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x49876

[FatSlob]

11. Hey, the KY house is Dem Controlled!

Look it up! Bench, you should fact check. 1st, you got the state wrong, then the party wrong. Good work!

[RoeBear]

13. Those Damn Republicans!

Wait a minute the votes passed 77-17 in the House and 34-4 in the Senate? It's even worse than I thought; those damn Republicans must have totally taken over both houses in Ohio.

Wait a minute again! There are about 34 Dems in the house and 11 Dems in the Senate so about half of the Democrats voted for this bill.
How do explain that?

[demsrule4life]

19. Since those Dems aren't from NJ

they aren't really Dems. The legislature in that right wing cess pool known as AL is owned by Dems, but hey they aren't from NJ so they have to be right wing.

[MrBenchley]

26. Dems, you still pissing and moaning about that?

You seem to be the only person on earth who doesn't know what a right wing shithole Alabama has been and is.

[Superfly]

30. You are absolutely wrong on that count.

Alabama is a very politically diverse state with a strong liberal and moderate democratic representation.

[MrBenchley]

34. Surrrrrrre, it is....

And Wayne LaPierre is the Queen of the May...

For a laugh, tell us what happens when you put "Alabama" and "liberal" in Google...

[Superfly]

37. Bad-mouthing Democrats by the anti RKBA crowd...who's surprised

Alabama House: 105 members
Democrats: 68
Republicans: 37

Alabama Senate: 35 members
Democrats: 24
Republicans: 11

Governor: Don Siegelman (D)

[MrBenchley]

42. So how many of those are liberal, fly?

[demsrule4life]

46. Thank you for proving my point

[MrBenchley]

49. So how many are liberal, dems?

[Superfly]

51. How many are moderates, Bench?

[MrBenchley]

55. Tell us, fly...and please also add

what makes a "moderate" in Alabama...

[Superfly]

56. What makes a "liberal" in AL?

Two can play your fucked up little game.

[MrBenchley]

59. How about these folks?

http://www.equalityalabama.com/mobilemeeting.htm

http://www.ppalabama.org/

http://archive.aclu.org/community/alabama/al.html

http://www.clearproject.org/Fifty_States_Alabama.html

You claimed that Alabama has lots of liberals...but when you're asked to put up some proof, suddenly it's somebody else's "fucked up little game".

It's not me that's fucked up....

[Superfly]

62. No, what you managed to prove

is that being a Democrat in a "right wing shithole" (as you put it) is not enough for your ultra-liberal/radical agenda.

[MrBenchley]

64. Gee, fly, so are you seriously trying to tell us

that Alabama is run by liberals?

"being a Democrat in a "right wing cesspool" (as you put it) is not enough for your ultra-liberal/radical agenda."
Geeze, most people I know think protecting the environment, allowing reproductive choice, supporting public schools, being tolerant of minorities, etc., is being very moderate. But then I try not to associate with trigger-happy ignorant yokels and other scum.

[demsrule4life]

65. You have asked me this before and now I'm asking you

why are you here? If some Dems are not really Dems because of the state they live in then you truly don't support the party as a whole. So why are you here?

[MrBenchley]

67. Geeze, dems...

I'm not the one here pimping for the GOP...or posting crap from Newsmax and expecting folks to take it seriously...or spouting rubbish like "Ed Asner is a communist" and "left of Stalin."

"So why are you here?"
Because I actually support the Democratic party...I don't sit around trying to make excuses for every right wing shithole in the country.

[demsrule4life]

68. Let's make a deal

you go and search. If you find that I have ever posted more then one thing from newsmax (I'm still learning this internet stuff)I will leave. If you don't you leave. Otherwise don't make unfounded accusations.

[MrBenchley]

71. Hell, dems...I'll go you one better...

You find one thing good you've ever said about any Democrat.

"don't make unfounded accusations"
Geeze, dems, I'm not the one pissing and moaning about "left of Stalin."

[demsrule4life]

86. Grow some balls and prove that I post

articles from News Max.

[MrBenchley]

90. In other words, you ain't got one

[Superfly]

66. Well it sure as hell is run by Democrats...

which is not good enough for you. Maybe you'd be happier at radicals-r-us.com?

[MrBenchley]

69. IS it, fly?

The governor is Republican
Both Senators are Republican
All six representatives in the House are Republicans

[demsrule4life]

47. Thanks Bench, this says it all

If a Dem is not left of Stalin he is not a Dem. Finally you have revealed your true colors.

[MrBenchley]

50. Too frigging funny, dems...."left of Stalin"

"Finally you have revealed your true colors. "
Yes...I'm not a right wing dipshit still fighting the Cold War.

[demsrule4life]

53. Just keep on throwing out those insults

[MrBenchley]

57. Happy to, dems...it's what we folks "left of Stalin" do at hootenannys

with the other beatniks...

[FatSlob]

58. That was mature.

[MrBenchley]

60. Tough titty, fat slob...

[FatSlob]

61. You're on a roll.

When do we get a vagina reference? Remember, always check before posting that you get the state and the party correct.

[MrBenchley]

63. And again, you have no actual content

[FatSlob]

70. Isn't that a riot!

YOU saying that somebody else doesn't have content?!

My nomination for funniest post of the day!

[MrBenchley]

72. No, fat slob, it's just your usual tedious

pissing and moaning.

[FatSlob]

73. So, did you ever find the European taggants?

The ones that are supposedly common in smokeless powder? Did you remember that what a Democrat controlled House in Kentucky does is not the same as a GOP contolled House in Ohio?

[MrBenchley]

74. Gee, fat slob, as we saw

guns blow up even without taggants...

I did find that taggants are used in explosives in Europe and even posted some examples.

And no matter which state this is in, it's a stupid piece of crap.

[FatSlob]

75. Are the Democrats

Who overwhelmingly voted for it "stupid piece(s) of crap"?

[MrBenchley]

76. Gee fat slob, did the Democrats

overwhelmingly vote for it?

So far all we got on that is your flat claim...

"Sen. Katie Stine, R-Fort Thomas, one of the bill's co-sponsors, said"

[FatSlob]

79. YES THEY DID.

In the Kentucky House of Representatives, there are 100 Members. 64 of those are Democrats. Of those 64, 42 voted for SB95, the bill referenced in the article. So yes, the Democrats in the House of Representatives overwhelmingly supported the bill. You can contact Kentucky House of Representatives to confirm this information. I spoke to the office of Representative Richards, the Democrat who is Speaker of the House. Sorry Benchley, I was right. The Democrats DO overwhelmingly support this in the KY House.

So, I ask are the two thirds of Democrats in the House of Representatives "stupid piece(s) of crap"?

[MrBenchley]

82. Well, then they're idiots...

But I can't say it better than the guy in the story..."How could anybody in their right mind think it was appropriate for a gun shop to open up in a neighborhood?"

[FatSlob]

84. Who'd have thunk it.

Bashing 2/3 of the Democrats in the Kentucky House by a member of the "Authoritarian Views on Guns" crowd.

[RoeBear]

102. It took awhile...

..but he finally showed his true colors.

[MrBenchley]

105. Yup, I'm a liberal

who knows stupid and dishonest shit when he sees it...as I do pretty much every day from the RKBA crowd.

[FatSlob]

112. Your position on Firearms Freedom

is surely not liberal. By definition, it is Authoritarian.

[MrBenchley]

115. Your definition...BFD

By your definition environmental protection laws, the Voters Rights Act, and regulations regarding corporate behavior are not liberal.

[FatSlob]

118. Way to change the subject.

Did you learn that in debate class? The fact remains that your position on the issue of firearms freedom is authoritarian. My position on that issue is libertarian. There is no way around it. Let us see, environmental protection laws...some are authoritarian, others are not. The "Voters Rights Act" would be libertarian, and regulations regarding corporate behavior are all over the map. No matter what changing of the subject you attempt, though, your positions in regards to firearm freedom are typically authoritarian. There is no way to dodge it.:hi:

[MrBenchley]

120. The subject is not changed...

"My position on that issue is libertarian. "
Big fuckin' whoop. Next ask me whether libertarianism isn't good old fashioned right wing horseshit in a new sack.

[FatSlob]

121. Bench, is libertarianism

good old fashioned right wing horseshit in a new sack?

[MrBenchley]

124. Yup...

[FatSlob]

125. So, if libertarianism is horseshit...

does that mean that you now oppose the libertarian ideals of equal rights? Do you oppose the libertarian ideal of women's suffrage? Do you oppose the libertarian ideals of voters' rights? Do you oppose the libertarian ideal of a woman's right to choose? How authoritarian of you! Authoritarian means curtailing of rights, libertarian is personal freedom.

[iverglas]

127. that's what happiness is!

"Different things to different people".

Kinda like libertarianism.

the libertarian ideals of equal rights

Well now, those would be the libertarian ideals espoused by Gandhi, who (like moi) believed profoundly and sincerely in the value of the individual.

I'm afraid those just wouldn't be the "libertarian ideals" of the crowd usually being referred to when the word is used in our context ... yer Lew Rockwells and the like.

Somebody wouldn't just be engaging in the fallacy of equivocation now, would he?

.

[MrBenchley]

129. Thank Rockwell we've got libertarians

or else the notion of "equal rights" would never have occured to anyone...

Meanwhile...

"The analogy bears a lot of truth, because the NAACP (represented by the NAAGP in April's analogy) is always quick to play the race card when it comes to pressuring Uncle Sugar to dole out taxpayer money to the "poor." The NAACP is especially in favor of welfare money for those pro-socialist Americans of African ancestry."

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0007/mailbox.html

[MrBenchley]

128. Not just horseshit, but right wing horseshit...

"the libertarian ideals of equal rights?"
You mean as expressed in giving gun stores an exemption from zoning regulations affecting everybody else? How the fuck is that equal rights?

"the libertarian ideal of women's suffrage"
Jeeze, womens suffrage and feminism was around long before there were idiots screaming about libertarianism. To pick a couple items, tell us, please what are libertarians doing about the glass ceiling? What are libertarians doing to make sure safe regulated daycare is provided for working women?

"Do you oppose the libertarian ideals of voters' rights?"
<sarcasm>Yeah, libertarians sure were a big fucking help in Florida in 2001 when voters rights were under attack.</sarcasm> Here's the Libertarian Party of Florida's website...search for "Florida," "NAACP" and "lawsuit." Amazingly, between 1998 and late 2002, these humholes couldn't find a SINGLE issue pertaining to voting rights to even put out a press release on.

http://www.lp.org/

Lest we forget. during that time Jeb Bush's banana republic threw 90,000 black citizens off the voting rolls, then settled the NAACP lawsuit by replacing them...although not in time for the 2002 election.

On the other hand, these idiots did manage to get a measure passed allowing them to get their nutcase candidates on the ballot without the requisite number of signatures previously allowed.

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9811-ballot-FL.html

"Do you oppose the libertarian ideal of a woman's right to choose? ""
Are you really going to pretend that nobody but the libertarians are doing anything about this?

By the way, where were the libertarians during the fight over the GOP's partial birth abortion ban? I don't see a single fucking thing on their website urging their members to take any action at all. Must be a deeply felt ideal that moves libertarians to sit with their thumbs up their asses like that.

[FatSlob]

131. How long before you get the semantics right?

libertarian does not mean Libertarian. One is a way of thinking about individual rights, the other (the one with a capital "L" is a political party that has stolen the name. I thought you were smarter than that.

The way I've been using it refers to the political scale, not the political party. Remember the political compass?

[iverglas]

132. sure nuff

Remember the political compass?

And do you actually suggest that Gandhi would have been in favour of firearms dealerships operating in residential neighbourhoods?

One is a way of thinking about individual rights

Indeed. And Gandhi's way of thinking about individual rights just did not involve this kind of nonsense. Really.

I doubt that even Uncle Miltie Friedman himself would think this was a particularly grand idea.

[MrBenchley]

135. If you recall, we had "enthusiasts" on here

trying to claim the Mahatma and even the Dalai Lama were rootin' tootin' gun rights supporters akin to Larry Pratt...

There's no argument that seems to be too absurd for the gun right crowd, is there?

[MrBenchley]

134. Next ask me when I'll give a crap

"Remember the political compass?"
Jeeze, you mean you think that was more than just an internet quiz? How pathetically sad....

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSandman]

171. Democrat bashing is acceptable...

If the cause is yours?

[MrBenchley]

175. Seems to be required by the RKBA crowd...

But if you still want to piss and moan about this stupid legislation, be my guest. We yet to see any PROOF that this has real Democratic support.

[FatSlob]

181. You mean that 2/3 of the Dems in the Dem controlled House

voting for it wasn't enough for you?

[MrBenchley]

188. At this point, fat slob...

no that wasn't enough for me. Let's see a link.

[FatSlob]

190. Contact Speaker of the House, Jody Richards.

His office will confirm the vote on SB95.

[MrBenchley]

192. In other words, no link from you.

[FatSlob]

196. Of course not, the State of Kentucky does not see

fit to release voting records on the web. You must contact them via telephone. I cited. You can verify via a simple phone call. Speaker Richards's office is waiting....

[MrSandman]

205. So Kentuckians are not...

REAL Democrats:wow:

[Romulus]

15. more dealers = more background checks

and more gun owner registration.

What seems to be the problem? :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

18. Gee, rom...

the problem is that nobody in their right mind wants gun dealers and the scum that hang around them in their neighborhood...

Didn't you read the story?

[el_gato]

25. how cute benchy

with your loaded language

[liberalhistorian]

28. You accuse me of

favoring groups that have a "history of preventing true democracy" and say that it's "no wonder I think so highly of them" and you have the nerve to accuse someone else of loaded language?

[el_gato]

33. facts are facts

not my problem

[MrBenchley]

36. Yes, gato, facts are never a problem with you...

You've yet to have any that I can see....

[el_gato]

39. pathetic insults are useless against me benchy

so sad for you

[MrBenchley]

45. And your posts are just plain useless....

except for their unintentional comedy value...

[el_gato]

54. all you can do is insult people, maybe you should do some research

it might help you with your attempts

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_gato]

40. again name calling, seems like you've run out of ammo benchy

pun intended

[Liberal Classic]

88. Interesting article

At first reading, I was going to agree with you. Giving firearms dealers a special exemption to zoning strikes me as unequal protection under law, though it may be within the scope of autority of the state legislature to trump city ordinance.

However, after having read the article I am not sure this is the case. In fact, it would seem to me that Kentucky's supreme court may have been guilty of establishing the unequal treatment. Note the article states the high court ruled city zoning trumps state law regarding the location of gun stores only. How is this not unequal protection under law? If the law is to be fair, it must be fair to us all, even to unpopular people and ideas. Especially the unpopular! Equal protection under law is a fraud if it only protects those things which are popular and well accepted.

Now, I don't live in Kentucky so there may be other issues going on behind the scenes that I don't know about (particlarly politics surrounding the zoning boards in question) but clearly this law is a response to the court ruling, not some out of the blue occurance.

Please note the parts of the article you did not cite:


Peter Garrett, a Newport gunsmith, sought in 2000 to open a shop in Bellevue or Dayton, but city officials would not allow him to locate in the cities' central business districts.

Bellevue officials felt Garrett's business did not fit in with the pedestrian shopping district along Fairfield Avenue, said Bellevue City Administrator Donald Martin.

...

Garrett rejected locations offered by each city in commercial strip malls, sued to have zoning restrictions overturned and lost.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that local zoning regulations trump state law regarding location of gun shops, but the legislation permits firearms to be sold anywhere other businesses are allowed.

...

The legislation permits cities to limit the size of such operations, Stine said, by allowing them to regulate the number of employees.

[MrBenchley]

91. Seems to me

municipalities ought to be allowed to decide what sorts of businesses they want to have located there...

[Township75]

92. So if some municipalities decide...

they only want right-wing, conservative book stores/newspapers and other such businesses and no left-wing ones, you support that?

[MrBenchley]

95. Gee, sounds like gun nut central....

Tell us, do you see many right wing book stores where you are?

[Township75]

98. Once again you adopt the typical anti gun reaction...

run from your previous statement and try to change the subject. How pathetic, or better yet, how typical of an anti gunner.

Now go run! Run far, far away from your statement, and you can pretend you never said it, and you can pretent you won't need to answer for it.

[MrBenchley]

119. And once again town dodges the question...

Ever seen a right wing book store?

By the way, if there was such a monstrosity, wonder if it would carry books advocating gun control? Or it would it peddle the same ugly "gun rights" lies the RKBA crowd peddles here.

You'll notice liberals can pretty much just rely on book stores.

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/Join/JoinBookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6165

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/Join/JoinBookPage.asp?prod_cd=C4642

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/Join/JoinBookPage.asp?prod_cd=C5155

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/Join/JoinBookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6084

"Now go run! Run far, far away from your statement, and you can pretend you never said it, and you can pretent you won't need to answer for it."
I'm right here, town. Now you answer the question.

[MrBenchley]

130. So who ran away

and who stayed and backed up what he said?

[Township75]

176. It looks as if you ran away

"they only want right-wing, conservative book stores/newspapers and other such businesses and no left-wing ones, you support that?"

I am still waiting, but you are still running. Guess you lack the balls to back-up your words.

[MrSandman]

94. How progressive...

Forget minority rights

[MrBenchley]

96. Yeah it is progressive, sandman...

What minority is that? Arms dealers for criminals?

[MrSandman]

97. If it seems that...

"municipalities ought to be allowed to decide what sorts of businesses they want to have located there..."

Then it seems to me that is condoning discrimination based on the criteria of the majority. They may be able to zone where the businesses will be located, but which ones they want?

[MrBenchley]

106. Yeah, but consider the source

"Then it seems to me that is condoning discrimination based on the criteria of the majority. "
Discrimination against what? The sort of lowlife who hangs around gun dealers?

[MrSandman]

158. Think about it Bench...

"91. Seems to me


municipalities ought to be allowed to decide what sorts of businesses they want to have located there..."

So if the municipality doesn't want: abortion providers, same sex marriage, Kingdom Hall, private religous school, Catholic Church...


they ought to be allowed to decide?

Or are you saying the sorts you approve of?

[MrBenchley]

163. Too fucking funny...

You're actually going to try to tell us that some numbnuts dealing guns out of his back room is equal to the Catholic Church?

[MrSandman]

168. The principle is...

Exactly the same.

Just because something is unpopular in the community is not grounds for outlawing it. And if the majority doesn't want the business there, how will it succeed?

ed fer spellin...s

[MrBenchley]

177. There's no principle here at all...

Just a fringe bunch's gun fetish.

"Just because something is unpopular in the community is not grounds for outlawing it. "
Jeeze, it's not being outlawed...it's being made subject to zoning regulations JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER BUSINESS.

[MrSandman]

207. So this should make you happy

"The Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that local zoning regulations trump state law regarding location of gun shops, but the legislation permits firearms to be sold anywhere other businesses are allowed.

"Gun businesses should be treated the same way as any other business," Stine said."


http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/04/05/loc_loc2gun.html

[Township75]

99. Anti gunner Jim Crow was against minority rights too!

And we see some anti gunners on this board advocate his stance. Discusting that it permeates here, but anti gunners bring that with them where ever they slither.

[MrSandman]

100. Equality does seem to threaten some

[Township75]

101. And the some....

is better known as the anti gun crowd.

[MrBenchley]

109. Or sane decent people

of the sort that ended up on the NRA's hate list.

[demsrule4life]

111. Does sane and decent people include people

that lies and won't admit when they have made a mistake?

[MrBenchley]

113. It sure doesn't include

people on a Democratic board who can't point to even a single post that they've ever made supporting a Democrat.

"that lies and won't admit when they have made a mistake?"
Tell us, Dems, is Ed Asner a communist?

[demsrule4life]

116. I have admitted to saying that

I back everything I say. Do you?

[MrBenchley]

122. Let's see you back that up, then...

Here's a place to start...

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Ed+Asner+communist+Newsmax&fr=fp-pull-web-t&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt

[MrBenchley]

108. Equality is NOT giving gun stores an exalted status

by exempting them from the laws and regulations every other business is subject to...

[MrSandman]

160. But giving them equal consideration...

without personal prejudices is.

BTW, how many of the other businesses are as heavily regulated by the feds?

on edit...throw a stone and see who yelps loudest

[MrBenchley]

161. So let's have them subject to zoning regulations

like every other business...

And like the man said "Who in their right mind...."

[MrSandman]

169. That is fine...

as long as it is "like every other business..."

[MrBenchley]

107. And now the scum who pushed Jim Crow push gun rights

at the top of their rancid lungs...

"Discusting that it permeates here"
Yeah, it is sickening to see the RKBA crowd pimp for racists like Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt, or post filth from Newsmax and American Daily.

[Liberal Classic]

143. We're getting along so well today

"And now the scum who pushed Jim Crow push gun rights"

I am saddened to see you bring up your claim again about Jim Crow laws. Anyone knowledgable about history should be aware of the fact that the Black Codes stripped racial minorities of the rights to own knives and guns, as well as the legal right to self defense and restitution in courts of law.

[MrBenchley]

156. And anybody knowledgeable about current events

ought to be aware of what a pantload that claim is...and also ought to know that the last gasp of Jim Crow (Trent Lott and David Duke, for example) is peddling this idiotic gun rights rubbish....

[Liberal Classic]

103. I agree in general principle

And consider this issue to be the same as with casinos, and sexually-oriented businesses such as adult book stores and strip clubs. Not everyone wants to live next to one, sure. But, as lawful enterprises they must be be treated fairly.

[MrBenchley]

110. Exactly...

And let's not forget that many of these establishments also include shooting ranges, with their attendant noise and lead pollution.

[Liberal Classic]

133. Since we seem to be in agreement

Did the pod people get to you or what? :) Different enterprises have different environmental impact, of course, whether your talking about shooting ranges or gas stations. Noise and pollutants are part of the price we pay for an industrialized society. Zoning is one way to manage risk, though it's not the only method to do so nor is it without any drawbacks. I don't intend to get in an argument about the efficacy of zoning laws, but I will comment that indoor ranges tend to have less noise and lead pollution than outdoor ranges because they're designed with controls in place.

[MrBenchley]

136. Noise and pollutants

I certainly think that municipalities ought to have the right to zone so that residential neighborhoods and existing businesses are not oppressed by noise and pollution.

How about the danger to nearby homes and businesses (not to mention firefighters) if a gunshop/shooting range were to catch fire?

[demsrule4life]

139. Guess we better close all

gas stations close to homes and businesses since they are a far greater threat if a fire occurs then a gun shop or shooting range.

[MrBenchley]

141. Is THAT what you guess, dems?

Gas stations are required to have fire suppression systems and are inspected periodically...

[demsrule4life]

144. And of course those always work

I've seen to many people smoke around gas pumps, or driving through gas pump areas smoking to have much faith in fire suppression systems. Before you come up with some idiot AL come back, I have observed this in many countries and many states. Best one I saw was at a Esso station in Germany, asshole was standing pumping gas and smoking at the same time. I figured I had enough gas to get to the next station.

[MrBenchley]

146. I got no doubt there's a lot of stupid shit in your vicinity

The fact remains gas stations are regulated out the wazoo...most are not cheek by jowl with other businesses...all are subject to zoning regulations...and most of them aren't masquerading as ordinary residences.

[demsrule4life]

150. I got news for you

you prob have neighbors that sell guns now and you don't know it. Private FFL holders have been doing small volume gun sales out of their house's for years. Mostly to friends and relatives so they can get wholesale prices instead of retail.

[MrBenchley]

152. Geeze, dems...

I had one on my block back when I lived in Brooklyn during the Reagan years....lowlife scum around all night and day until the cops finally busted him.

One of the best things Bill Clinton did was put a lot of those irresponsible idiots out of business.

How you coming on backing up that "Ed Asner is a communist" crap?

[Liberal Classic]

140. I have no beef with that but a small semantic thingy

To me, people have rights. Not governments. The government's purpose is to protect the rights of the people. A city as a political entitiy don't have rights in the same sense as people have, such as the right to speak, worship, bear arms, etc. Governments have certian behaviors prohibited to them such as no search and seizure without sworn court order, or no cruel or unusual punishments. We consider these "rights of the people" but note how they are prohibitions laid on the government. Governments are granted the limited authority to do things through the political process. This is not the same at all as having rights.

Rounds cooking off in a fire is dangerous, no question, but it is no less manageable or greater risk than that posed by various chemicals used industrial manufacturering. Risks must be managed.

Since you haven't seen fit to, I'll mention as an aside that I am a slack-jawed knuckle-dragging right-winger anyway. Or at least something close to it. :)

[MrBenchley]

142. I disagree...

Nations certainly have rights, as do states and municipalities. We invest them as acting on our behalf.

"Rounds cooking off in a fire is dangerous, no question, but it is no less manageable or greater risk than that posed by various chemicals used industrial manufacturering. "
Remember, according to roe, this covers little kitchen table gun dealers. Firefighters responding to an industrial blaze are aware that they are going into a hazardous situation. Firefighters responding to a bobo selling guns out of his home in a residential neighborhood may be unaware that he's got ammuntion stored there until its too late.

[Liberal Classic]

145. That's why I said it was a semantic thing

In the broadest sense the word is applied to countries, states, and cities all the time.

We invest them as acting on our behalf.

I wholeheartedly agree, because this is what I am trying to say. We invest, or delagate or grant or however you want to put it powers to governments. It can be said we grant government rights. But we the people have them and they are ours to grant or invest. This is one of the most important political concepts to me, government with the consent of the government. Too many people seem to act on the basis that rights are derived from the government and given to the people. Though we are disagreeing on semantics, I think on the core concept we are of one mind.

As for the second point, states and municipalities already have ordinances regulating the storage of flammables, such as ammunition, fireworks, and chemicals.

[MrBenchley]

149. However, small dealers

of the sort roe is speaking of are likely to fly under the radar and attempt to dodge regulatory supervision.

[MrSandman]

172. What would happen to a box of ammo...

If you threw it in afire. Do you know or do you assume?

[FatSlob]

178. There really isn't a danger

Contrary to popular belief, smokeless powder does not explode. It burns at a quick rate of speed. Using a .223 Remington as an example: When the temperature gets high enough for a rounds NOT in a gun to "cook off", the projectile pops off the end of the casing at an extrememely low rate of speed. This is because the powder does not explode, it burns. It is designed to burn all the way down the barrel, and when it doesn't have an enclosed burn space, it just fizzles. I know it is a hard concept, unless you've actually seen it happen. I've seen this and was quite amazed. I thought, originally, that the bullet would go zinging off, it only went a very short distance, and was unable to go through a cardboard box.

[iverglas]

147. me too! me too!

Up here, and I imagine it's pretty much the same down there, municipalties may regulate certain things, but not prohibit them.

For instance, they may make zoning regulations (by-laws) that confine certain types of businesses to certain zones. Strip joints and casinos, for example, may be confined to zones outside the central business district and well away from residential areas.

The thing is that there are valid reasons for municipalities doing that -- and one of those reasons *is* the kind of clientele that certain businesses naturally (and are obviously intended to) attract. Obviously, another reason would be the intrinsically dangerous nature of some activities.

Municipalities generally allow "home-based" businesses of various kinds, generally providing that there may not be waiting rooms or employees (or perhaps no more than one employee). In those cases, the consideration uppermost in municipal councils' minds is usually the vehicular traffic that will be attracted by the business, and the impact of that traffic on the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

Retail operations are usually *not* included in the home-based businesses allowed. (Amway and Avon distributors, alluded to in another post, generally do not conduct their businesses out of their homes -- do not have customers coming and going from their homes; they are itinerant sellers.)

The story in the opening post said:

A bill passed by the state Legislature ... allows gun dealers to open shops in their homes ... .

So the traffic control aspect of zoning, to protect residential neighbourhoods from the noise and reduction in safety that comes with traffic (and that are the reasons why property values decrease), has been abandoned in favour of the interests of firearms vendors -- but, apparently, not in favour of the vendors of any other product.

But it also says:

The legislation ... exempts gun businesses from most zoning laws ... .

So it would appear that it not only allows home-based firearms dealerships to operate in residential areas, it allows any firearms dealership to operate in residential areas -- but, apparently, does not allow any vendor of any other product prohibited by zoning by-laws from operating in a residential neighbourhood to do so. Have I misunderstood?

I'd suggest that the appropriate remedy for the dealer who had been denied permission to open in a particular place would have been for a court to apply the appropriate statutes and case law and decide whether the municipality's decision was within its authority or not.

If it was -- say, if its criteria were within its authority, and it applied the exact same criteria to any business wishing to operate in the central business district (e.g. whether its products are "destination purchases" or impulse purchases, etc.) -- and if it had applied those criteria in good faith to the dealer in question -- tough shit for that dealer, just like any other business that flunked the test.

If it wasn't -- say, if it allowed other similar businesses to operate in the central business district -- then the court should have struck down the by-law. This is why we have courts, and why they can award substantial costs against parties like municipalities that act in bad faith.

I'm just failing to see why firearms dealers should be exempted from complying with any of a municipality's zoning by-laws - simply because one or two municipalities allegedly acted in bad faith. And I'm not even seeing what bad faith there was in those municipalities' decisions.

.

[Liberal Classic]

151. I'm not from Kentucky so I have no first hand knowledge

I feel relatively certain the issue is a storefront business, not someone who runs a home-based mail-order business. Reading the article I infer residential-only zones are not the issue, the zones in question are those with residential mixed with commercial and industrial.

Municipalities generally allow "home-based" businesses of various kinds, generally providing that there may not be waiting rooms or employees (or perhaps no more than one employee). In those cases, the consideration uppermost in municipal councils' minds is usually the vehicular traffic that will be attracted by the business, and the impact of that traffic on the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

Exactly so.

As an aside, I wouldn't live in a city in which running a mail order business out of the house is a crime. I wouldn't buy a house with such a prohibition in the deed. I feel that is just draconian.

The other thing of note in the article is that the city council may limit the number of employees in such a business, effectively limiting such enterprises to sole proprietorships.

I don't live there, but I guess the guy in the article wanted to open a storefront in a trendy shopping area, but the city zoning board would only allow him to open up in some seedy strip mall. I personally think the court ruling and the passed law are both unnecessary and need not exist. It makes things more complicated, IMO.

Unitedstatians are just sue happy.

[MrBenchley]

157. The only reason I can see to have these sort of dealers

is so that the gun industry can peddle guns to the sort of people who might atttract more attention at a sporting goods store...

And the only reason to give them a exemption from zoning laws is to keep the authorties from shutting them down easily.

[MrSandman]

173. So they have exemptions...

from BATF(E) also?

[MrBenchley]

179. Who ARE you trying to kid?

As we saw from another thread, the regulation for what makes a delaer is so vague as to be near meaningless.....these kinds of businesses are deliberately planned to be under the radar.

And as we also saw from anotehr thread, fewer than a quarter of the WORST dealers in America had been inspected...and three quarters of those were breaking the law.

[MrSandman]

209. Reporting all transactions to the BATF(E) is...

Under the radar? Volunteering for warrantless premise inspection? Being required to maintain a permanent record of all transactions? On which planet?

[FatSlob]

180. I downloaded this law and briefly looked through it.

I don't think that this whole thing about home based businesses and gun dealerships is correct. I'll have to look into it more.

[RoeBear]

93. Everyone realizes that...

...we're not talking about storefront businesses, don't we?

These are kitchen table businesses much like an Avon, Tupperware or Amway business.

[Moderator]

210. Locking.

48 hours and 210 posts, stick a fork in it, it's done.