[Vision2020] discharging firearms

[Ron Force]

Moscow municipal ordinance doesn't allow you discharge firearms (with some 
exceptions):

Sec. 3-3. Discharge of Weapons
Prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person,unless authorized pursuant to Idaho Code 
Title 18, Chapter 33, to discharge firearms or weapons of any kind or 
description within the City; this Code Section shall include hand guns, rifles, 
pellet guns, air rifles, BB guns, sling shots, flippers, bows and arrows, and 
other projectiles; providing, however, that this Code Section shall not apply to 
law enforcement officers in the discharge of their duties.
(Ord. 84-18, 8/20/84)

[What's a flipper? No one seems to know: 
http://volokh.com/posts/1239655427.shtml]

You can Google Idaho Code Title 18, Chapter 33 to read through the voluminous 
Idaho Law on the topic.

Here's the Idaho Constitution:
Idaho - 1890

SECTION 11.  RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and 
bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not 
prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the 
person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes 
committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of 
legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted 
felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a 
firearm.  No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the 
ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the 
confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a 
felony. 


Ron Force
Moscow Idaho USA




________________________________
From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at frontier.com>
To: vision2020_moscow.com <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Fri, November 5, 2010 11:31:34 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] discharging firearms- was Pres mans-up, Crabtree doesn't

Bob writes:

"But to complicate things, keep in mind that although the Constitution protects 
the right to keep and bear arms, it says nothing about our rights to discharge 
those arms."


>From what my dictionary says, "to bear" means "to hold and use" which in the 
>case of a firearm seems to me to mean to discharge.

If a law prevents someone from using their gun, how is that not 
unconstitutional? (I'm playing the devil's advocate here)

I suppose that since there are laws that limit free speech, I suppose 
interpretation of our constitutional amendments is very subjective.

gclev

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.  
              http://www.fsr.net                      
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101105/31c08481/attachment.html