How to get around the supreme courts ruling on firearms.

It's rather simple if they want to claim "people have the right to carry in public spaces" then lets play hard ball.

The government of such states such as Maryland should have members of the government create companies that buy up all the land in one county turning it into private land, and making any "gun rights" moot.

So Baltimore Incorporated and the county/city of Baltimore would be 2 entities controlling the same land. Simply the government then uses the company to pass any "laws" that would be "unconstitutional" if passed by the government.

The company simply passes a rule saying no firearms on their property which would be all land directly outside of peoples homes.

The government simply makes armed tress passing a felony with 1-3 years in prison.

Public carrying of firearms effectively banned without giving citizens any standing.

Do this in every other county in the state and the supreme court can't do anything.

Since it's not proving any functions of a government it won't be treated as one.

 

Go ahead, it's not like Baltimore is doing itself any favors with the gun violence among owners of non legal guns. BTW, I can't wait for the gov to start bidding on what I own. They're really gonna pay far out the ass.

Also, in for the hilarious comments incoming.

 

So armored car security guards would not be allowed to carry guns?

 

We can always count on the left to contrive various plans to evade the Constitution of the United States.
And of course, this "plan" isn't hard ball- it's belligerence and ignorance combined..

IF you actually gave a damn about the safety of people, you would be finding ways to take criminals out of circulation.
Instead- your "plan" is to disarm the law-abiding people criminals will be attacking. That makes me ask why- and how that benefits you.

 

The government could wire tap everyone's phones and find all the criminals but me thinks the right would be upset by this too.

Literally hacking phones and tracking locations and text/calls is the Simplist way to catch criminals.

 

I don't know which the left would hate more - the current situation, or privatising literally all public land nationwide lol.

That this us even being proposed shows they have completely lost their minds over guns.

 

OR, we could just prosecute and jail the criminals we catch, and stop telling our police to hold back.
We don't need any left-wing paranoia or crack-pot delusions here, just some common sense.
It's not necessary to violate everyone's rights to do that.

But you know that. Why would you know it, and dodge it with BS? Hmmmm.

 

But, the government owns the property. So, your idea won't work...lol.

Not to mention, the voters would shoot that craziness down at the ballot box.

 

It would be unconstitutional, without a warrant.

 

ANY real American, who loves and respects this country, who exemplifies the code of "Duty, Honor, Country" would have a problem with this. You, sir, are in the wrong country. You don't believe in the Constitution, apparently any part of it, you don't respect the idea of private property, either real or intellectual, everything you stand for is the exact opposite of what the USA stands for. Tapping phones without a warrant, reading people's texts violating both the Constitution and their privacy, I just continue to be shocked with the absolute bullshit you come up with.

I hope you're a troll, because if you're for real, you're a sad example of the absolute worst this country has to offer. I would offer to buy you a one-way ticket to, oh I don't know, North Korea, but I probably can't afford it.

But perhaps a benefactor who can will step up and do so. You'll love it there. Not only can they tap your phones any time they like, not only are you not allowed to own firearms or private property, but if you commit a crime, or they even think you may have, even if it's something stupid and silly like not respecting the "Dear Leader" properly, not only will they send you to a prison camp (I've heard those are fun!), but your family, too...

 

Thats called economic fascism. It was popular in Italy and Germany in the 1930s and 40s. It was pretty successful, and not just at preventing/reducing civilian firearm ownership. But there were some associated problems with fascism starting in the late 1930s...

 

Hahahaha! Such desperation. The SCOTUS made the ruling now folks have to go by it. If a private company can be sued for not making a gay wedding cake what makes you think this "private company" can't be sued?

 

Is this satire? Is it a joke? Shirley you jest.

 

And they like to call us on the right the " fascist"...

If the challenge here was to come up with the most absurd notion possible you have succeeded sir

 

Back before we had mass shootings, we had serious law and order and a system for removing sociopaths from society. It isn't hard to see how we got here. Get tough on crime and crime will decrease. Surprise.

 

The more sensible way is for the civilized areas to just say "No, we won't obey the edicts of an illegitmate court".

What can a corrupt minority like the GOP do about that? They're vastly outnumbered.

 

Just say screw the laws and ignore the ones you don't like right?

Good luck with that because that has consequences

 

I don’t know what’s worse….someone coming up with an insane idea, that will never become a reality, or the people commenting on the idea as if it could be a reality.

 

What? Huh?

What members of government? Create companies how? Where would all of this money come from? On what authority are they able to sell public lands? Would the populace be trespassing every time they left their house? How would these private companies enforce parking violations? Would these companies pay for their own snow removal? Would this company pay for its own road repairs? You are expecting the police to go onto private property to enforce their private rules? If I make a rule that you cannot wear shoes in my house, can I call the police to enforce this edict?

There are so many questions and so little time.

 

If you really want law and order you would only give 2 protections to defendants, the right to an attorney and protection against forced confessions, the US constitution gives criminals too many rights. It shouldn't matter how evidence is aquired police should be allowed to use whatever methods they desire to get evidence against violent criminals.

The warrant shouldn't should only apply directly to the house, everything else should be fair game including vehicles. I hope the courts rule that electronic data isn't protected by the 4th amendment so that police departments can start getting violent persons off the street without all this hassle.

 

Getting back to your plan, do armored car guards get disarmed as well?

 

It does have consequences- and we are living with them right now, because the politics in power think that the law is less important than their ideology.
That's how we got in this mess- tolerating that crap.

 

May you never even get within sight of a city hall

 

I'd rather have freedom and the crime that inevitably comes with it than your version of governmental oversight. But hey, while you're at it, why not create a Department of Pre-Crime and lock people up for things they haven't done yet but that you think they might?

The more you talk the more you really do sound like "dear leader".

Oh, and you're missing a "t" at the end of your name.

 

Entities created by the state are restricted in the same manner as the state.