He can, so long as he doesn't reside in a no-discharge zone. But how is that last part even close to relevant and or news worthy? Did the reporter seriously ask a retailer if gunshots blasts were covered under the warranty?

"I'm sorry sir, I have called the company personally and they say they would have fixed it, but you attempted an unauthorized means of repair so it will not be covered by the warranty. The cost to repair is $11,000."

Why would there be a need for a no-discharge zone, I wonder? I personally dislike government restrictions on gun ownership in general, but I further despise this sort of trampling of the 2nd Amendment. He's on his property shooting his lawnmower. It doesn't exactly ring of sanity, but I'm not sure if it can be considered a crime.

No-fire zones are there to keep hunters and morons like this guy from discharging a weapon within range of people's houses. This is not a trampling of the 2nd amendment. The law does not say you can't own a gun in the area, it just says you can't fire it in the area, and understandably so.

This was a crime of passion, not premeditated. He was firing on all cylinders.

Blankfist, you'll understand when a ricochet from the lawnmower kills a kid.

The paper said this was in the morning too and he'd been drinking before that. Anyone that hits a bottle first thing and then goes out for yard work has problems and shouldn't be carrying a weapon.

I've always been under the assumption that one cannot fire a weapon at all within a town limit, unless it was a practice range.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
No-fire zones are there to keep hunters and morons like this guy from discharging a weapon within range of people's houses. This is not a trampling of the 2nd amendment. The law does not say you can't own a gun in the area, it just says you can't fire it in the area, and understandably so.


Are you saying then "The right to bear arms" means "the right to own guns, but not use them unless under strict governmental control"? Not sure I agree with that, though I have to admit when I was a wee youngin', my dad would let me fire .357 rounds from our front porch (he'd be holding the gun with me, obviously), so I'm not that terrified of guns and gun ownership. I suppose, I'm more of a libery-first kind of guy.

No. The right to bear arms was written in there to ensure that the people had a means to revolt if necessary. (It's about damn time, if you ask me).

Therefore, I am saying that they can keep them, but no, the right to fire them (even on your own property) is not a Constitutionally-given right.

I wonder if that sort of squabbling over the 2nd Amendment's text is fair. Sure it just says you have the right to bear arms, not shoot them. It also says you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not private property or privacy, but we can surely grant us all that. Furthermore, is it right to tell a man what to do on his property with his own gun? Why such the hysterics over firing a gun? I just don't personally get where that sort of fear comes from.

It comes from some drunk jackass potentially discharging his weapon and hitting his neighbor. It comes from someone shooting at a deer in their back yard, only to miss and hit someone else.

Why can't I fire my M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle at your house when I'm tanked, gunner? Why?