Paintball laws in RI

[Tao]

Real firearms cause so much trouble are are involved in so much crime in the States and everyone is focusing on controling paitball guns???....crazy....

[slade]

case by case is not cutting it as far as im concerned. and if you are over 18 shooting into a schoolyard you should spend time in jail. you are just mad because you would be affected.

so 10 year olds should drive and drink too?

nothing you do can have a completely satisfactory outcome. case by case cannot completely eliminate the problem, but it will help and its really the only thing you can justly do. if someone strangles someone else, what do you do, punish that person or handcuff everyone in the world? a woman is raped, do you punish the man or castrate every other man in the world? if someone drowns someone else, do you punish that person or take away all the water? you get the point.

you simply cannot prevent people from doing things like that. say you do not allow anyone under 18 to posess a paintball marker. i would estimate that for every 1000 people that can no longer play the sport they love, one doesnt get a welt. you can compile the actual statistics if you want to do the research. and what does that trouble kid do? he finds another cheap thrill, maybe its playing with gasoline and matches, maybe its get into a fight, maybe its steal a car and go on a joy ride. all of which im willing to bet are potentially more damaging.

and after you restrict posession of paintball markers for minors, maybe someone over 18 does something stupid with one, or gives one to a minor. are you going to eliminate paintball markers? what about everything else that is potentially dangerous, cars, motorcycles, gasoline, bows, baseball bats, crow bars, scissors, who knows.

there is certainly a fine line between a law for the safety of the people and a law which infringes upon the rights of the people. you can certainly see that that line has been crossed with much of what ive been saying. i think you crossed it with your initial statement, and i believe this law crossed that line.

remember, the only way to end all suffering, sadness and injustice in the world would be to kill everyone. is that worth the cost?

if you are over 18 shooting into a schoolyard you should spend time in jail.

oh, certainly. i never argued against that. i just said it should be the same for anyone under 18.

you are just mad because you would be affected.

that would be correct if you removed the word "just". i generally dislike such age discriminations and notions that those under 18 cannot be trusted to be responsible, or at least have an adequate level of common sense.

so 10 year olds should drive and drink too?

completely irrelevant. ive been through this argument before on this same forum, and the other person invariably brings up this same point, generally citing driving and drinking. a paintball marker, if used as intended by a 10 year old, cannot be harmful to himself or to the community. if it is misused, it is harmful. it is not harmful if an 18 year old uses a paintball marker as intended, only if it is misused. your entire argument is that a person under 18 is more likely to misuse a paintball marker, which is true to a certain extent, but not nearly to the point at which a legal restriction is necessary.

a car, on the other hand, if used as intended by a 10 year old can still be extremely harmful to himself or others. it is the same with alcohol. although, if you really want to argue it, research has shown that the chance a driver has of getting into an accident is a product of their experience driving, and much less related to age. drinking can be fine at any age as long as it is not too much.


please. tell me why i shouldnt be allowed to own a paintball marker. tell me, i want to know. give me one good, solid, valid reason. im waiting.

[CoolHand]

case by case is not cutting it as far as im concerned. and if you are over 18 shooting into a schoolyard you should spend time in jail. you are just mad because you would be affected.

so 10 year olds should drive and drink too?

If you're waiting for the government to pass laws so your kids will be safe, you shouldn't have said kids in the first place.

It is already considered assault to shoot at someone who is not playing and wearing protective gear. So now you want to make it MORE illegal?

That's like a hate crime. It's already illegal to kill someone, but for some reason, you should be punished more harshly if you dislike your victim? It's ridiculous. How many murderers like their victims to begin with? It's feel good BS, all of it.

If parents would take care of their damned kids, teach them right from wrong, and tan their asses when they prove they haven't learned, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have now. Instead they rely on public schools and divine intervention to teach their kids, and then are totally incredulous that their kids are five kinds of screwed up.

Also, just an FYI, the entire world as we know it is dangerous. Just because you have a child, does not give you the right to dictate what everyone else does to protect their welfare.

If it's your kid, and someone has to be put out or tolerate an inconvenience, it should be you.

Flame me if you like, but you know I'm right.

[Lohman446]

Heres the deal. I WANT the cop who pulls over a group of people (of whatever age) in a vehicle with a loaded, ready to use paintball marker, to be able to take action immediatly. Not to have to wonder if they are or are not the ones that defaced a sign / shot at someone three miles back. I see no problem with the idea of limiting how these can be transported. Yes that draft up there needs some attention.

I don't like the idea of people playing paintball on public land where a hiker may walk through unkowing and be shot accidentally and loose an eye. I don't mind the idea behind that provision of the draft though I see mass problems in its wording (see above). I don't like the idea that the area I may be hiking / biking through may have some outlaw ballers on it who accidentally include me or my child in there game. What if you shoot at someone accidentally on public land who happens to be hunting, doesn't realize it is a paintball marker, and shoots back. I don't think public land is the place for paintball unless you receive specific permission for such.

Considering these can be readily converted into weapons I don't mind anyone under 18 (the age our society has already deemed "resposible") not being able to purchase one directly. This doesn't even stop that, it simply requires a training course. As I have stated before I question the wording of that as well. Those under 18 that don't like being grouped in the "under 18" crowd. Tough, we were all there once, I'm sorry that we don't base things off of standardized testing etc but our society has determined 18 and 21 to be good numbers for certain things.

There are problems with this, no doubt. But I suggest those that try to contact there representatives about this do so in a reasonable logical fashion without the doomsday "OMG this will ruin paintball" mode.

[OneEyedPimp]

I think it is a horrible law. Why make a law that is stupid, not needed, and against certain amendments to our dear constitution?

[Lohman446]

I think it is a horrible law. Why make a law that is stupid, not needed, and against certain amendments to our dear constitution?

What amendment(s)? Come on now, lets not get carried away in our criticism.

[slade]

Heres the deal. I WANT the cop who pulls over a group of people (of whatever age) in a vehicle with a loaded, ready to use paintball marker, to be able to take action immediatly. Not to have to wonder if they are or are not the ones that defaced a sign / shot at someone three miles back. I see no problem with the idea of limiting how these can be transported. Yes that draft up there needs some attention.

im sure if someone was beaten with a baseball bat, the cops would be able to detain someone nearby holding a bat. the same thing would be true for anything paintball related. the law is good in intent, but i dont like the way its worded. i think it could cause more harm than good, and could lead to the cops harassing players. remember, that gun in the bottom of my bag in the backseat of my car with the hopper and tank still on, but degassed, is illegal in 3 different ways according to this law.

Considering these can be readily converted into weapons I don't mind anyone under 18 (the age our society has already deemed "resposible") not being able to purchase one directly. This doesn't even stop that, it simply requires a training course. As I have stated before I question the wording of that as well. Those under 18 that don't like being grouped in the "under 18" crowd. Tough, we were all there once, I'm sorry that we don't base things off of standardized testing etc but our society has determined 18 and 21 to be good numbers for certain things.

its fairly easy to make a sacrifice for someone else, isnt it?

[OneEyedPimp]

What amendment(s)? Come on now, lets not get carried away in our criticism.

Specifically the second and ninth. I am not familiar with Rhode Islands constitution, but I know that by joining the union, you agreed to the constitution and any amendments to it. Then again, I am against any law that specifically tells me what I can and can't do (provided I am not against laws stopping me from taking the rights or liberties of others). Like I am totally against all gun laws, trade laws, car laws, and taxes. I could go on...

[Lohman446]

Specifically the second and ninth. I am not familiar with Rhode Islands constitution, but I know that by joining the union, you agreed to the constitution and any amendments to it. Then again, I am against any law that specifically tells me what I can and can't do (provided I am not against laws stopping me from taking the rights or liberties of others). Like I am totally against all gun laws, trade laws, car laws, and taxes. I could go on...

So.. a paintball marker *is* a firearm? If its protected by the second amendment then it must be, and if it is it is subject to the restrictions placed on them. The second amendment does not protect against firearm laws, thats already been decided by the Supreme Court on various occassions.

As to the ninth, ehh your getting rather stretching there.

The theory of ethical hedonism (do whatever you want as long as it does not harm anyone else) is actually a pretty good theory, one that I support at face value. However, do not go trying to explain where it is in the Constitution. As to the idea of protecting paintball markers under firearm laws, it seems to me that most people involved in paintball want to keep them as seperate from firearms as possible, for good reason. You are familiar with your states dueling laws I presume.

[Lohman446]

im sure if someone was beaten with a baseball bat, the cops would be able to detain someone nearby holding a bat. the same thing would be true for anything paintball related. the law is good in intent, but i dont like the way its worded. i think it could cause more harm than good, and could lead to the cops harassing players. remember, that gun in the bottom of my bag in the backseat of my car with the hopper and tank still on, but degassed, is illegal in 3 different ways according to this law.


its fairly easy to make a sacrifice for someone else, isnt it?

Then take the hopper and tank off it, and case it for transport. Yes there are problems in the wordings but lets not be lazy in what we could do. It would not hurt anyone here to degass a marker, case it, and carry it empty. It would not impose an undo burden on anyone. Don't like the wording, understand the intent, perhaps its better to work towards a solution that both sides could live with rather than simply digging feet in and crying no. For all my defense of this bill I don't think I have ever stated the wording was good.

As to sacrificing for someone else. I still don't see how the need for a training course (if within reason, note my objections above) would be that much of a problem. I personally think we could handle it much the same way some states handle firearms. Hand out a state approved form outlining the dangers of a marker, and proper safety precautions. Make sure the buyer of the marker initials each line as they read it. No big deal, even I'd do it (I already do it every time I buy a firearm, despite having a CCW that required *gasp* a training course).

Frankly... in MI, under our stupid firearm laws, paintball markers are already firearms. We just luck out that noone bothers with the laws as written.

[OneEyedPimp]

So.. a paintball marker *is* a firearm? If its protected by the second amendment then it must be, and if it is it is subject to the restrictions placed on them. The second amendment does not protect against firearm laws, thats already been decided by the Supreme Court on various occassions.

As to the ninth, ehh your getting rather stretching there.

The theory of ethical hedonism (do whatever you want as long as it does not harm anyone else) is actually a pretty good theory, one that I support at face value. However, do not go trying to explain where it is in the Constitution. As to the idea of protecting paintball markers under firearm laws, it seems to me that most people involved in paintball want to keep them as seperate from firearms as possible, for good reason. You are familiar with your states dueling laws I presume.

You can _never_ take what the supreme court says as final face value. The supreme court is meant to rule weather a law violates the constitution. They are _not_ supposed to decide what the constitution protects/doesnt protect. Once you come to that realization, almost every law made from 1912 on is pretty much against your "unalienable" rights. Now if you want to participate in following these laws that is fine, but no one has the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my life.

Now, if this law does go into affect, in Rhode Island a paintball gun is a weapon, protected under the second. If it does not, it is not a weapon, therefore protected under the ninth.

[slade]

Then take the hopper and tank off it, and case it for transport. Yes there are problems in the wordings but lets not be lazy in what we could do. It would not hurt anyone here to degass a marker, case it, and carry it empty. It would not impose an undo burden on anyone. Don't like the wording, understand the intent, perhaps its better to work towards a solution that both sides could live with rather than simply digging feet in and crying no. For all my defense of this bill I don't think I have ever stated the wording was good.

my point was, i shouldnt be able to be arrested for having a paintball marker at the bottom of my bag in the back of my car that still has the tank on. im not going to have it sitting in the seat next to me, that would certainly cause suspicion.

As to sacrificing for someone else. I still don't see how the need for a training course (if within reason, note my objections above) would be that much of a problem. I personally think we could handle it much the same way some states handle firearms. Hand out a state approved form outlining the dangers of a marker, and proper safety precautions. Make sure the buyer of the marker initials each line as they read it. No big deal, even I'd do it (I already do it every time I buy a firearm, despite having a CCW that required *gasp* a training course).

i was commenting on how adults dont seem to care about having unnecessary restrictions on minors. as for the training course, again in theory it is good, but i basically agree entirely with your objections and think it would be entirely a waste of time, money and effort.

[Lohman446]

You can _never_ take what the supreme court says as final face value. The supreme court is meant to rule weather a law violates the constitution. They are _not_ supposed to decide what the constitution protects/doesnt protect. Once you come to that realization, almost every law made from 1912 on is pretty much against your "unalienable" rights. Now if you want to participate in following these laws that is fine, but no one has the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my life.

Now, if this law does go into affect, in Rhode Island a paintball gun is a weapon, protected under the second. If it does not, it is not a weapon, therefore protected under the ninth.

Umm.. no. I'm sorry but things are seldom that simple. As to what people do and do not have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do. Yes, our democratically elected representetives have the right to make laws and set punishments for violation of those laws. As long as those laws do not violate the Constitution. Our laws are not simply the Constitution, you are making things far too simplistic. As to the "unalienable" rights... please. I'm sorry, but your way of thinking is either an academic standpoint that you do not stand by in real life, or an anarchists view point that will be checked, as often as it takes the government checking it until you learn.

[Lohman446]

i was commenting on how adults dont seem to care about having unnecessary restrictions on minors.

Taken on a case by case basis based on individual minors some restrictions can seem unnecessary and invasive (drinking, driving, firearm laws). Over the entirety they seem to be worth it. You have to remember, most people who lived through being a minor, now look back at the stupid things they did during it and judge minors to be a lot like they were. You don't like to admit it, but as a whole you are a lot like we were, and we were stupid. Maybe we still are...

[OneEyedPimp]

Umm.. no. I'm sorry but things are seldom that simple. As to what people do and do not have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do. Yes, our democratically elected representetives have the right to make laws and set punishments for violation of those laws. As long as those laws do not violate the Constitution. Our laws are not simply the Constitution, you are making things far too simplistic. As to the "unalienable" rights... please. I'm sorry, but your way of thinking is either an academic standpoint that you do not stand by in real life, or an anarchists view point that will be checked, as often as it takes the government checking it until you learn.

Unfortunately in this case you are wrong on several counts. It simply is that simple. The problem is is that most laws we have today do violate our constitution. Our representatives were never meant to be constantly making laws. They should only make them when they are needed, and that is very rare.

And no, I always stand by my beliefs and I am not an anarchist.