Firearms on the Great Loop Route laws and regs?

[jwnall]

This thread is going along pretty sensibly, bringing up issues which are both interesting and worthy of discussion. I hope it stays that way, since I am enjoying it.

 

[Jeff F]

"Assault rifles" use a round designed to shoot animals dog-sized or smaller, so-called "varmint" cartridges. Typical hunting rifles use much more powerful cartridges. Just because certain firearms look militaristic doesn't necessarily mean they are more deadly than those designed for civilian use.

Not quite. Assault rifles use a round designed to kill *people*, and they do that more effectively than large-bore hunting rifles in most circumstances. There is a reason they're used by military and militia forces, and it's not that they 'look militaristic.' They may also be fine for shooting varmints, but that certainly is not what they are designed for.

I'm sure we can agree that both are deadly.

 

[psneeld]

Not quite. Assault rifles use a round designed to kill *people*, and they do that more effectively than large-bore hunting rifles in most circumstances. There is a reason they're used by military and militia forces, and it's not that they 'look militaristic.' They may also be fine for shooting varmints, but that certainly is not what they are designed for.

I'm sure we can agree that both are deadly.

Cant argue with the logic...unfortunately from my experience the definition is based more on features than caliber.

Anyway it is ridiculous as weapons like boats have different designs/performance for different situations....a single shot 22 snub can kill a single person as well as an atomic bomb...everything in between is just a matter of selection of tool for the job.

All gun arguments are silly as every point has a counterpoint.

Either they should be available to law abiding citizens or not...the degree is only argued by people ignorant of weapons and tactics....or entirely political.
I hate getting into it as I really don't care about anything except listening to fallacy.

 

[hmason]

Profiling is alive and well. I'm a 74 year old Caucasian with silver hair. My wife is Caucasian, of a certain age and variable hair color. We live on an 8 - 10 kt boat and house a Toy Poodle and a Chihuahua. We fly an American flag off the stern and a yacht club burgee off the bow. We have been boarded by the CG 3 times in the last 18 months. Now that's profiling.

I must say that they have always been courteous, asked if I had any weapons aboard and I told them yes, a 12 ga shotgun. They were more concerned with the Chihuahua than anything else. In one instance it turned out that the boarding officer went to high school with my daughter. Even so I hate being profiled.

 

[gwkiwi]

We carried handguns onboard while on the loop two years ago, just had to stay on the US side the whole way which our 5'7" draft dictated anyway.

No issues whatsoever.

 

[ksanders]

Not quite. Assault rifles use a round designed to kill *people*, and they do that more effectively than large-bore hunting rifles in most circumstances. There is a reason they're used by military and militia forces, and it's not that they 'look militaristic.'

Jeff, actually the opposite is true.

Military rounds are actually less effective against humans than their civilian counterparts, of the same type, IE arms like pistols and rifles.

That is because the type of bullet that can be used in military combat is limited by the Hague Convention Article 3 (1899) to be non expanding, because expanding bullets were found to be inhumane. The rounds a civilian (and police) can use have no such limitations. The rounds used by civilians for home defense are generally engineered to expand quickly, which make them much more effective agasinst humans.

Back to the original discussion though...

The supreme court in Heller found that it is unconstitutional to ban handguns because they are in widespread use as home defense weapons. This in effect rendered unconstitutional any law that bans the ownership of handguns.

The question has not been asked of the court if semi automatic rifles are also in widespread use as home defense weapons, and if as such are included in the Heller decision. In my opinion, since the AR-15 style semi automatic rifle is so popular with millions in use, that it will be a fairly easy argument to make that it is also in widespread use as a home defense weapon, and that any ban on it should be ruled as unconstitutional.

 

[Drake]

Jeff, actually the opposite is true.

Military rounds are actually less effective against humans than their civilian counterparts, of the same type, IE arms like pistols and rifles.

That is because the type of bullet that can be used in military combat is limited by the Geneva Convention to be non expanding. The rounds a civilian (and police) can use have no such limitations. The rounds used by civilians for home defense are generally engineered to expand quickly, which make them much more effective agasinst humans.
.

Absolutely correct. The proof is that SWAT teams use a completely different round than the military, which seems to be politically bound by the UN rules of being "nice" in warfare. Civilians and SWAT teams use a soft point mushrooming bullet for maximum lethality. Military rounds are FMJ, which no one would consider using for defense.

 

[catalinajack]

Back to the original discussion though...

The supreme court in Heller found that it is unconstitutional to ban handguns because they are in widespread use as home defense weapons. This in effect rendered unconstitutional any law that bans the ownership of handguns.

The question has not been asked of the court if semi automatic rifles are also in widespread use as home defense weapons, and if as such are included in the Heller decision. In my opinion, since the AR-15 style semi automatic rifle is so popular with millions in use, that it will be a fairly easy argument to make that it is also in widespread use as a home defense weapon, and that any ban on it should be ruled as unconstitutional.

The Heller decision did NOT state that any ban on handguns is unconstitutional. Far from it. It merely established that an individual has the right to keep a handgun IN HIS HOME for self defense. The genesis of the case was a District of Columbia case challenging a law that said that handgun owner must keep his handgun locked in his home, ostensibly to keep safe children. Obviously, a locked-up gun is useless for self-defense as Scalia pointed out in his opinion. In fact, the ruling took pains to point out that this case establishes no right beyond the home defense right. That leaves the door open to laws restricting hand gun possession outside the home, or any gun for that matter. The Heller decision is far from being the god-send to gun rights advocates most folks think it is. That is why I said in an earlier post that I believe the NRA has refrained from attacking the restrictive gun laws recently enacted in Maryland and Connecticut. Rhetorical question to all: Why would the NRA still be so concerned with "2nd Amendment Rights" if the Heller decision was so definitive in establishing a gun ownersip right anywhere, anytime?

 

[BruceK]

Really interesting high level discussion. Frightening in parts, interesting nevertheless.

 

[ksanders]

The Heller decision did NOT state that any ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

Heller found that a ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

It limited the scope of its desicion to the questions that were asked of the court, and therefore its decision only finds that the right to keep and bear arms is vested in an individual in their home for the purpose of self defense.

Here is a link to the official decision

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Also... Attached is a photo of the pertinant part of the official decision that specifically adresses a "ban on handguns", since that is were you think my interpretation of Heller is in error.

It does not get much clearer than this.

"The handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self defense) violates the Second Amendment. The districts total ban on handgun possession amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self defense"

Now, to keep this relevant as to boating, and the great loop...

Now that our highest court has found that a individual can keep a handgun in their home for the purpose of self defense...

How does that relate to someone cruising the Great Loop in their boat???

Well, if your boat is your home then the Heller decision would apply to you.


I am intentionally refraining from posting on any subject not specifically pertinant to the carrying of firearms in your boat while traversing the several states on the Great Loop. I would only ask that we all keep the discussion focused on the boating related aspects of this issue.

 

[Andy G]

Well, if your boat is your home then the Heller decision would apply to you[/B]

The definition of 'home' is an interesting concept.

Does the court hold the requirement of equity in the the nebulous 'property' is a prerequisite for triggering a right under the 2nd amendment or can a mere casual rental suffice to be a home?

Can you take a handgun with you on the loop in a hired vessel and qualify. Can a homeless person living on his 'regular park bench', receive the same consideration, or does he/she not have the right of self protection under the 2nd amendment because they do not have the access to property.

Where is the link between rights and property explained?

To this foreigner it seems that ruling is very restrictive

 

[ksanders]

Well, if your boat is your home then the Heller decision would apply to you

The definition of 'home' is an interesting concept.

Does the court hold the requirement of equity in the the nebulous 'property' is a prerequisite for triggering a right under the 2nd amendment or can a mere casual rental suffice to be a home?

Can you take a handgun with you on the loop in a hired vessel and qualify. Can a homeless person living on his 'regular park bench', receive the same consideration, or does he/she not have the right of self protection under the 2nd amendment because they do not have the access to property.

Where is the link between rights and property explained?

To this foreigner it seems that ruling is very restrictive

The ruling is very restrictive, and intentionally so. If we look at our Supreme Courts historical decisions, we find that the court tends to keep the scope of its decisions only broad enough to answer the question that was asked of it.

In the case of Heller the court was asked to overturn a law who's effect was to make private handgun ownership impossible, and if possible make the actual use of the a handgun impossible for the purpose of defense.

In answering those questions the court had to... Determine if the 2nd amendment is vested in an individual, and if so does the law in question infringe on the rights recognized by it. The decision answered those questions and nothing more.

The concept of "home" has not been tested, or clearly defined. To the best of my knowledge there have not been any cases brought before the court since Heller asking the court to define what is your "home" as it applies to your 2nd ammendment rights.

You bring up a very good point. Does a person that does not have what you or I think of as a "home" not have the rights recognized by the 2nd ammendment? What constitutes your "home"?

Since the supreme court has not addressed this issue as it pertains to firearms, the interpretation is left at the local level.

I believe that if asked the question of wether the boat that you are living on constitutes a "home" as referenced in Heller, that the court would have little choice but to include your liveaboard boat as a place there you have 2nd amendment rights.

 

[FF]

For folks that have a hand gun the use of "safety slugs" like the Glasser will do loads less harm to your vessel than military or dum dums.

IF piracy is the fear a 50cal will keep them at a mile away , and a few rounds will sink most attacking boats.

 

[Mule]

Let's debunk shall we:

The 5.56 is far less lethal than the 30 06 or 308 it replaced and it has shorter effective range. For combat it is far more likely to wound and make the opposing force less effective dealing with the outta the game wounded soldiers. Next, the round is Much, Much lighter than the afomentioned 30 caliber rounds and the weapon itself is siginificantly lighter thereby the warrior can carry more.

Now, for home use, the hollow point is safer for the untended consequences that often arrive. Hitting sheet rock, 2 layers as many walls are constructed will tend to flatten out the round and cause it to expend energy so the next door, room or apartment dweller is far less likely to be a victim. FMJ will just cut through wall after wall. The hollow point, though is far more deadly when it hits its intended target.

Semi automatic rifles are pretty much the same, they throw out a lot of rounds in a hurry. Because they "look" scary or called "assault"rifles is not relevant because an auto loader is an auto loader is an auto loader.

 

[psneeld]

Kevin, the liveaboard boat being a home is always going to be nebulous.


The supreme court ruled recently that a floating home is not a vessel because it was never intended to be used as one.


So the typical liveaboard boat by default is a vessel....thus subject to a myriad of federal, state and local laws that affect "vessels" on their waters.


So yes you can be boarded at any time to have those laws enforced...and LEOs can ask about if you have weapons aboard for officer safety like a pat down...


The bazillion dollar question is when will the feds, defending the second amendment finally once and for all either protect that right or not.


A park bench is public property and not "private property" thus a bit of a different story. A cardboard box under an overpass may meet a different legal standard...I am not qualified to even speculate.


But a boat used in cruising, though while mobile, is still a place of expected privacy (within reason)...if the second amendment for privacy/individual protections doesn't apply...then the amendment is finally dead.

 

[ksanders]

Kevin, the liveaboard boat being a home is always going to be nebulous.


The supreme court ruled recently that a floating home is not a vessel because it was never intended to be used as one.


So the typical liveaboard boat by default is a vessel....thus subject to a myriad of federal, state and local laws that affect "vessels" on their waters.


So yes you can be boarded at any time to have those laws enforced...and LEOs can ask about if you have weapons aboard for officer safety like a pat down...


The bazillion dollar question is when will the feds, defending the second amendment finally once and for all either protect that right or not.


A park bench is public property and not "private property" thus a bit of a different story. A cardboard box under an overpass may meet a different legal standard...I am not qualified to even speculate.


But a boat used in cruising, though while mobile, is still a place of expected privacy (within reason)...if the second amendment for privacy/individual protections doesn't apply...then the amendment is finally dead.

Thats the way I look at it as well.

We all know and understand that USCG can inspect, search, etc... without a warrant a US flagged vessel. That is simply because they were granted that authority by I think the revenue cutter act or something like that in 1790. A time when there were not any liveaboard recreational boats.

Any other (like state or local) LEO's that search a boat without a warrant are doing so under the assumption that a boat is a vehicle, and they are applying the lesser "reasonable suspicion" doctrine that generally applies to a vehicle to a boat. That doctrine can and will be challenged someday by a liveaboard, or the owner of a larger cruiser, claiming that they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" aboard their liveaboard boat, and that as such the 4th amendment applies.

I think that some of the same tests that are used in 4th amendment caselaw will eventually be used to define what is your "home" for the 2nd amendment. Some of them being that you have sole control and custody? do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? etc... A park bench clearly does not qualify. A boat or a motorhome clearly does.

As far as the 2nd amendment goes, the "bear" prong of the 2nd amendment has not been well defined. Thats where things will get interesting.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

Excellent discussion. After reading the recent volley of posts, it is clear that we have vested far too much power in the hands of 9 unelected lawyers appointed to life terms, especially when they are so openly partisan and bias in their opinions. What ever happened to justice being blind?

 

[ranger58sb]

Not quite. Assault rifles use a round designed to kill *people*, and they do that more effectively than large-bore hunting rifles in most circumstances. There is a reason they're used by military and militia forces, and it's not that they 'look militaristic.' They may also be fine for shooting varmints, but that certainly is not what they are designed for.

That is technically incorrect, in two ways. First is that in military application wounding (not killing) is preferred, and second is that they are seldom more effective than large-bore hunting rifles when the target is large (like human, or larger).

I'll add that the original design was about storming fortified military facilities (bunkers and so forth), and anyone trying to do that with a civilian AR15 would pretty much get their a$$ handed to them.. in a casket. The AR15 is not an "assault" rifle.

Instead, an AR15 is pretty much conceptually similar in action to a Browning, Remington, Benelli, Beretta, etc. semi-auto shotgun or a Browning or Remington semi-auto (hunting) rifle. Cosmetic differences, plus some modular capability to it doesn't take much custom gunsmithing to make it work for people of short or large stature, to change sights, etc. Otherwise, pretty much the same idea.

-Chris

 

[rwidman]

......... I am an old, white haired white man. Not the demographic that gets mistreated by cops if reasonably sober. Not to worry

I am also an "old, white haired white man" and I've been boarded by the USCG twice in the past two years. Not around home, but on the Chesapeake Bay. And I've been sober 24/7 for the past several years.

I can't really claim to have been "mistreated", but I am a bit pissed that they can just pull anyone over at any time for no reason and inspect the boat.

 

[rwidman]

Actually think the 50 states thing works pretty well. Don't like the direction your state is headed, leave. The ability to move, .....................

Moving to another state because you don't like the one you are living in is not a practical choice for most folks who are not retired. We have our careers and families to consider.

Once you retire, yes, move if you want to. Most likely, you will be trading one set of issues for another.

 

[O C Diver]

Moving to another state because you don't like the one you are living in is not a practical choice for most folks who are not retired. We have our careers and families to consider.

Once you retire, yes, move if you want to. Most likely, you will be trading one set of issues for another.

How many states have you lived in during your life time? I've lived 3 or more years in 6 states, and have had 12 different addresses. Maybe half of those moves were to improve my career or a better community which benefited my family. It's easy to move if you're serious about improving your situation (and your families) in life. It's easier to stay where you are and accept the status quo (bad job, poor neighborhood, or bad schools).

Ted

 

[BandB]

Moving to another state because you don't like the one you are living in is not a practical choice for most folks who are not retired. We have our careers and families to consider.

Once you retire, yes, move if you want to. Most likely, you will be trading one set of issues for another.

I think if you can move and you'll honestly be happier, then do it. But don't do it for politics. You'll soon find them annoying in the other state. Do it because you find living there more fulfilling. In South Florida, in many respects we're our own world and it's as if we aren't in FL. However, we are. I'm not going to penalize myself by moving when the Governor or legislature does things I don't like. If I applied that standard there are times I'd move to another country. But then there would still be some things I didn't like. Cost of living is a reason to move as well. That's why so many New Yorker's retire in South Florida. New York is great to them when they're making a NY salary. But when they retire on fixed income, they head elsewhere.

The old saying was "The Grass is Always Greener on the Other Side" but I tend to like Erma Bombeck's, "The Grass is Greener Over the Septic Tank."

Perhaps the thought is not to run from something, run only if it's toward something.

 

[Panacea123]

Thanks for all the input and replys
Some of you have posted very useful info and links to informative sites
That's what I was looking for!
It has given me many sites and info to research.

Thanks again!

As originally posted I asked for info and not opinions.
This was not intended to be a post on 2nd amendment opinions.

Please consider this post closed, unless you have more info or resources to contribute.
PS: I share many of your opinions but that's not the point!
This is meant to be for info right? If not limit your comments to "Facebook" and chat forums!
Sincerely:
Panacea

 

[BigJim]

My 30-06 M1 Garand

Has twice the everything a .223 round has. And the idiots that write stupid gun laws have not figured that out yet, thankfully.

In Mommie-fornia you can buy Mini-14's all day, they shoot the same round as the evil black so called assault rifle.

Not quite. Assault rifles use a round designed to kill *people*, and they do that more effectively than large-bore hunting rifles in most circumstances. There is a reason they're used by military and militia forces, and it's not that they 'look militaristic.' They may also be fine for shooting varmints, but that certainly is not what they are designed for.

I'm sure we can agree that both are deadly.

 

[catalinajack]

Excellent discussion. After reading the recent volley of posts, it is clear that we have vested far too much power in the hands of 9 unelected lawyers appointed to life terms, especially when they are so openly partisan and bias in their opinions. What ever happened to justice being blind?

Those nine unelected lawyers whom you deride comprise one leg of our three legged stool which is the very foundation of our great country. Sure, most folks disagree from time to time with some of the Court's decisions but, if one believes in the wisdom of our founding fathers, if fact, if one believes in our Constitution, all of it, then one must support the legitimacy of the SCOTUS. The alternatives are an unchecked and oppressive Congress (are not all Congress-members partisan by definition?) or, worse, a dictatorial president. It is the Supreme Court that is the check and balance the keeps our country on course, albeit, sometimes with a bit of cross-track error. It is elections that bring us back to course. That is why this election is so important. The next president will shape the SCOTUS for generations. The Court has been dominated by conservatism (bias to some, to others, not) for thrity years. A generational shift is looking more and more likely. I express no opinion on whether this is good or bad. As to the quoted opinion, I do agree that there is open bias but how could there not be? We are all shaped by our life's experiences, how we were brought up, our environment. To expect that, as individuals, a judge to not have an intrinsic bias is a high expectation. Scalia had a bias, so does Ginsburg. This is good, not bad.

 

[FF]

"if one believes in our Constitution, all of it, then one must support the legitimacy of the SCOTUS."

Up until about 1920? or so the Suprimes would view cases , case by case in light of what the Constitution actually said.

Then the somehow they switched to reviewing cases to include what lower courts had already decided.

This means any blarney pulled out of the ear wax of a low court "political judge" has standing vs the constitution.

So political ideals , not the Constitution is responsible for 4 judges views.

"Scalia had a bias, so does Ginsburg. This is good, not bad. "

Only "good" if the ideas can not stand honest Constiutional review.

Hardly the Founders concept.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

Amen, FF. The Founders feared judicial activism.

 

[Rossland]

We carried handguns onboard while on the loop two years ago, just had to stay on the US side the whole way which our 5'7" draft dictated anyway.

No issues whatsoever.

Great discussion, but lets get back to the original question about bringing a gun on the "loop".

Don't try to bring a handgun to Canada. If you declare it at the border, you will probably just loose the gun. If you try to hide it, you will be arrested and deported (without your boat). Your boat will be seized and you will have to pay a penalty to get it back.

You can transport a long gun thru Canada, but do your homework as some kinds of long guns are banned too. Or stay on the US side of the Great Lakes and take the long way around by Detroit.

 

[Lost Horizons]

Don't try to bring a handgun to Canada. If you declare it at the border, you will probably just loose the gun.

You can bring a restricted handgun to Canada to participate in a competition.

 

[mramoo]

I have searched through the Canadian firearms regs and can not find rules for "Rim Fire" firearms referred to, only "Center Fire". There must be some regs concerning "Rim Fire", they are not liated with the Antiques, so where are they listed?