The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Hazcat on July 01, 2008, 05:47:58 AM
-
Lawmaker says he'll defy city's ban on weapons
By JIM THARPE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/01/08
You could call it the Atlanta version of "High Noon."
Top city officials will announce Tuesday that despite a new state gun law that went into effect at midnight, they will have anyone carrying a weapon at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport arrested. The state lawmaker who sponsored the new gun law says if they do, the city will immediately be sued. And state Rep. Tim Bearden (R-Villa Rica) said the plaintiff in the lawsuit could be himself.
"I have a permit, and I have family I have to pick up at the airport tomorrow [Tuesday]," Bearden told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Monday. "I'll have one [a concealed weapon] with me at all times."
Airport General Manager Ben DeCosta said if Bearden shows up at the world's busiest airport with a gun, he'll be busted.
"I can identify him, and I'll have him arrested," DeCosta said Monday. "We're not fooling around. This is a post-terrorism environment."
The new law, which Bearden sponsored, permits licensed gun owners to carry concealed firearms in parks, on public transportation and in restaurants that serve liquor. The law takes effect Tuesday.
Firearms proponents hailed the law as a victory for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They say law-abiding citizens with the appropriate permits should be allowed to carry firearms in formerly forbidden areas for self-protection.
Before the new law was passed, Georgia law banned guns from venues like public transportation and restaurants serving alcohol. More than 40 other states permit guns on public transportation, Bearden said, and 37 allow permit holders to carry weapons into restaurants.
"I was in law enforcement for 15 years," Bearden said as the bill awaited the governor's signature two months ago. "I never rode up on a shooting in progress. I don't like the idea of the police telling you, 'Get mugged, get raped, get murdered. We'll come by, take the report, or send flowers.' That's the wrong message."
Opponents, however, blasted the proposal, saying it has the potential to spark more violence than it stops. DeCosta wrote to Gov. Sonny Perdue asking him to veto the bill, and Mayor Shirley Franklin and MARTA officials publicly lambasted the idea. MARTA bus drivers gathered more than 1,000 signatures on petitions demanding bulletproof shields.
Federal law already bans guns past the security checkpoints at U.S. airports. The new state law, however, apparently would permit guns to be carried on the non-secure side of Hartsfield-Jackson by people who have gone through a background check and have been certified to carry a weapon. Licensed gun owners would be permitted to carry weapons on public transportation coming into the airport, its lobby and in restaurants outside the security checkpoints.
DeCosta said he will use the first day the new law takes effect to declare Hartsfield-Jackson a "gun-free" zone.
"We're going to make it clear that the law does not make any allowance for guns at the airport," DeCosta said. "Guns are not appropriate for any airport in Georgia."
He and Franklin plan a 10 a.m. news conference to discuss the new gun law.
Bearden said the new law clearly permits guns in some areas of the airport.
"They are not appropriate once you go past security," he said. "But in parking lots or restaurants or public transportation, they are OK."
The state lawmaker said the city does not have the authority to defy a state law, and if they make arrests they will end up in court.
DeCosta said city officials will not back down from their position on the new law and again vowed to have Bearden or anyone else carrying a gun on airport property arrested.
"He can then have all the NRA [National Rifle Association] lawyers say why it's OK for him to bring a gun to the airport," DeCosta said.
MARTA, meanwhile, released a statement late Monday noting that state law prohibits firearms on public transit unless the carrier has a valid license to carry a gun.
"This license must be carried at any time that an individual is carrying a firearm on MARTA," the statement said.
Link: http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2008/06/30/airport_gun_showdown.html?cxntnid=amn070108e
-
I was about to post same.
The arrogance of public officials. In DC and Chicago the attitude to the SCOTUS was one of we'll find a way to weasel around it. In Atlanta, just blatant disregard for public law. And with the city in a budget crisis they'll waste money fighting this lawsuit.
I'm wondering if dozens or hundreds of us Georgia CCWs should up with Tim Bearden to help him pick up his family at the airport what they would do?
Also catch my next post here about Steven Greenhuts' article on big government.
Alf
-
I hope they arrest the guy, not for carrying a weapon... but for trespassing. Its pretty clear he has been warned not to goto the property. He is acting like a teenager.
-
The lawyers are already lining up for this one...on both side.
-
I hope they arrest the guy, not for carrying a weapon... but for trespassing. Its pretty clear he has been warned not to goto the property. He is acting like a teenager.
There you go again, TAB.
Wrong as usual. This is a public airport on public property. The gentleman has a reason and a right to be there. He is not breaking any law so tell me again why he should be arrested? Trespassing must have a legal reason to enforce, the airport has none. They are just stamping their feet and whining about a law that has be legally passed by the state legislature and signed into law by the Governor.
So who is acting like a teenager?
-
There you go again, TAB.
Wrong as usual. This is a public airport on public property. The gentleman has a reason and a right to be there. He is not breaking any law so tell me again why he should be arrested? Trespassing must have a legal reason to enforce, the airport has none. They are just stamping their feet and whining about a law that has be legally passed by the state legislature and signed into law by the Governor.
So who is acting like a teenager?
Is there legal reason for him going to the air port? you know like picking some one up or something like that? He is doing this simply to get attention so he can get relected. no reason to make a threat about going there to get arested. It would have been much easier for him to have who ever is incharge of enforcing the laws in the state, make sure they are enfroced.
He is grandstanding to get relected, nothing more.
-
I'm no lawyer but, State trumps local, and Federal trumps State. So would all the local libs please stop trying to rewrite the law of the land.
-
Is there legal reason for him going to the air port? you know like picking some one up or something like that? He is doing this simply to get attention so he can get relected. no reason to make a threat about going there to get arested. It would have been much easier for him to have who ever is incharge of enforcing the laws in the state, make sure they are enfroced.
He is grandstanding to get relected, nothing more.
Yes he has a reason...
"I have a permit, and I have family I have to pick up at the airport tomorrow [Tuesday]," Bearden told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Monday. "I'll have one [a concealed weapon] with me at all times."
But even if it was what you call grandstanding, how about looking at it like it is his DUTY as a legislature to ensure that laws are followed. So either way he has a reason to be there.
Why don't you just admit that your wrong? I personally would like more grandstanding like this from our elected officials. It is one of the things we pay them for.
-
So instead of him being arested, why does he not go to the air port with the head of the state agency that enforces the laws, and give the guy a choice, fallow the law or be removed... No that would be to easy, way to simple and he would not get nation wide news coverage of that. He could have made this all go away with one phone call, he still could have gotton plenty of news attention by doing that. Instead, he makes threats, how is that not grandstanding?
-
How about he is making an example of a grandstanding little dictator wannabe so that this does not repeat itself?
If you will notice in the article Bearden (Legislator) TOLD the wannabe that it is legal. Little dictator (and city officials) said they don't care. So the 'phone call' has already been made.
Any other baseless, foolish arguments you need shot down?
-
If the phone calls have already been made... he did not make the right phone call.
How hard is it for him to call the head of the law enforcment agency for the state?
Let me ask you this, if this was over something like bubble gum would you care?
-
Please explain how it could be over 'bubble gum'?
It is over a right that has been upheld by SCOTUS and a law put in place by the state.
Sometimes these little left wing dictators need to be PUBLICLY slapped down.
-
so has porn would you still support him if he had passed law saying it was ok for him to openly display it?
-
TAB,
We are not debating porn. Please stop using false logic and straw men.
-
I hope they arrest the guy, not for carrying a weapon... but for trespassing. Its pretty clear he has been warned not to goto the property. He is acting like a teenager.
NO, He is acting like a RESPONSIBLE public servant. Just because city officials do not approve of the law does not let them ignore it. I presume in TAB's careful reading of this post he missed the part about it being STATE LAW.
-
See Tom, you don't get to have all the fun! ;D
-
If the phone calls have already been made... he did not make the right phone call.
How hard is it for him to call the head of the law enforcment agency for the state?
Let me ask you this, if this was over something like bubble gum would you care?
Actually, Tab, if State Law stated it was legal to chew bubble gum on public property, in particular Airports, and some city official and airport official made public statements that regardless of State Law, they were going to arrest anyone who showed up at the airport chewing bubble gum, I would support anyone him.
As a matter of fact, since he is the guy who initiated the work to get the law passed, I'd say he is doing the right thing. Being the first to be arrested for a law he backed rather than letting a citizen face the court costs. I'd say he is putting his money where his mouth is.
-
See Tom, you don't get to have all the fun! ;D
Can't argue with a closed mind, so I usually just insult him, ;D does no good in changing his mind but lets me turn anger into ridicule.
However, I'm going to attempt to explain to this anti CCW bigot. If he appeared with the head of the appropriate agency, the only precedent set would be that the Airport manager has to do what his boss tells him. If this Legislator is arrested, charged, tried and acquited, then it becomes a Legal precedent similar to the Incorparation of a SCOTUS decision. Any one in Georgia charged under this now illegal law would have charges dropped simply by pleading that such and such case showed the law to be no longer in effect.
-
I see the chest beating has stoped, he desided not to go there...
Makes me have even less respect for him... if you say your going to do something, do it.
-
I see the chest beating has stoped, he desided not to go there...
Makes me have even less respect for him... if you say your going to do something, do it.
Anyone confirm this. Did the city decide to obey the law ?
-
I also find it funny that he took it to federal court...
This could have been handled by GA, in GA... speaks volumes about GAs state goverment.
-
According to today's edition of the AJC online, Rep. Bearden has decided to forgo being arrested, and fight the law the City of Atlanta in civil court.
From the Atlanta Journal Constitution (www.ajc.com)
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2008/06/30/airport_gun_showdown.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
-
I see the chest beating has stoped, he desided not to go there...
Makes me have even less respect for him... if you say your going to do something, do it.
There was no 'chest beating' going on here and if you read the article it says that a group had ALREADY filed a suit. No need to muddy the water.
-
I also find it funny that he took it to federal court...
This could have been handled by GA, in GA... speaks volumes about GAs state goverment.
Who took it to Federal court?
-
Bearben filed in federal court, civil rights violations and other things.... where as the ATL city attournys claim that under the large public gathering cluase in GA law they can disalow firearms.
Now I don't know alot about GA law, So I can not say who is right... but this should be handled in the state court system rather then federal.
-
Where was this reported? I didn't see it in either of the news stories.
-
It's the South and civil rights issues are pressed in Federal Court (don't ya know) ;)
-
It's the South and civil rights issues are pressed in Federal Court (don't ya know) ;)
ah but concealed carry is not a civil right... you may remember last week when DC vs heller came down... it was not inculded as an indivual right.
what we have here is an opposite of "IMO"s on what a state law actually means.
-
No, what we have here is an elected official (Mayor) acting like a petty tyrant and wasting taxpayers money.
-
No, what we have here is an elected official (Mayor) acting like a petty tyrant and wasting taxpayers money.
The same could be said of Bearden...
Any bets on rather or not a lawyer talked bearden out of going there?
-
The same could be said of Bearden...
Any bets on rather or not a lawyer talked bearden out of going there?
And just how could the same be said of Bearden? It is a STATE law that he wrote and sponsored so my guess is he knows what it means. ::)
-
Demanding to be arested comes to mind, as would thinking his interupation of the law trumps all others.
-
Demanding to be arested comes to mind, as would thinking his interupation of the law trumps all others.
He sponsored it! It's 'his' law. Your saying that if I write something I should bow to some one else's interpretation of what I wrote??
Sure your name isn't Stevens or Bryer? What your attempting sounds like their reasoning on the Second Amendment.
-
Demanding to be arested comes to mind, as would thinking his interupation of the law trumps all others.
HE WROTE THE DAMNED THING, HIS INTERPETATION DOES TRUMP ALL OTHERS .
I challenge you to say ANYTHING, post anything etc. that shows you are NOT just prejudiced against CCW.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP TIME. Give us some reason to think that TAB is not just an anti CCW bigot with the closed mind indicated by your posts on this and other relevant threads.
-
It's the South and civil rights issues are pressed in Federal Court (don't ya know) Wink
ah but concealed carry is not a civil right... you may remember last week when DC vs heller came down... it was not inculded as an indivual right.
what we have here is an opposite of "IMO"s on what a state law actually means.
He didn't even see that tongue-in-cheek joke when it hit him square between the eyes...just proves TAB is a flaming troll that has to dispute any CCW-related item.
-
I'll wait and see how he answers my post, which he will not do . He knows that I will compare it to his previuos posts, so he will just say,"Oh, I don't bother reading what he posts."
-
HE WROTE THE DAMNED THING, HIS INTERPETATION DOES TRUMP ALL OTHERS .
I challenge you to say ANYTHING, post anything etc. that shows you are NOT just prejudiced against CCW.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP TIME. Give us some reason to think that TAB is not just an anti CCW bigot with the closed mind indicated by your posts on this and other relevant threads.
He wrote a small section that was added onto the laws already in place...
Lets see what about me having a CCW for several years? Or my time working in a FFL... should I keep going?
Lets see from my posts on CCW... what can you say...
1 I don't like people that don't respect others wishes/ break the law then claim thier shit does not stink.
2 I don't like people that use a law designed to help LEO for ones own intrests
3 I beleave property owners/mangers have every right to restrict weapons that come on thier property
4 employers have every right to restrict weapons ( also see above)
5 I beleave people that go looking for confrontations while expressing a privilage they have, should not have that privlage.
Yep I guess I'm totally anti CCW... Oh yeah, I also beleave in the things like the tx 30-06 law and that there should be some type of training before some one can get a CCW... I'm just totally anti CCW...
-
I hope they arrest the guy, not for carrying a weapon... but for trespassing. Its pretty clear he has been warned not to goto the property. He is acting like a teenager.
Tab, you ever hear the expression-
It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt?
Learn it, live it. We'll all be better for it.
-
ah but concealed carry is not a civil right... you may remember last week when DC vs heller came down... it was not inculded as an indivual right.
what we have here is an opposite of "IMO"s on what a state law actually means.
Hmmm, I imagine it wasn't included because it wasn't even part of the lawsuit. Nowhere in the lawsuit was CCW metioned. Personally I believe the 2nd amendment will be determined at some date to include CCW as well. Because I think CCW is part of personal protection. It might be a while, but I see it coming. (being very hopeful here)
Ron
-
He wrote a small section that was added onto the laws already in place...
The new law, which Bearden sponsored, permits licensed gun owners to carry concealed firearms in parks, on public transportation and in restaurants that serve liquor. The law takes effect Tuesday
Bearden said the new law clearly permits guns in some areas of the airport.
"They are not appropriate once you go past security," he said. "But in parking lots or restaurants or public transportation, they are OK."
The state lawmaker said the city does not have the authority to defy a state law, and if they make arrests they will end up in court
2 I don't like people that use a law designed to help LEO for ones own intrests
Simple. I beleave LEO should not be a class, its an ouccpation...They should have to go thru the same process as every one else. In other words, if the average person can not get one, a leo should not get one.
Hell show me one case that says owning a gun a right.
Heller ;D
OK, Ron, every one else, Is TAB an anti gun bigot, Troll ? Or is he just a person who has relitively twisted veiws on property rights
-
[OK, Ron, every one else, Is TAB an anti gun bigot, Troll ? Or is he just a person who has relitively twisted veiws on property rights
Ok here's my 2 cents...
Maybe I just hate piling on 'cause I do find some of his post infuriating, but I haven't seen anything in his posts that suggest he's a communist or anti-American for that matter. But who knows?
I don't think TAB is an anti gun bigot. He may be a troll but probably not though he does seem a bit cantankerous at times. He has clearly thought out opinions about what property rights mean to him. On some he has a point on many I think he goes too far on a few I think he's just plain wrong.
1 I don't like people that don't respect others wishes/ break the law then claim thier shit does not stink.
agree
2 I don't like people that use a law designed to help LEO for ones own intrests
disagree
3 I beleave property owners/mangers have every right to restrict weapons that come on thier property
partially agree... on premises agree in public parking lot disagree
4 employers have every right to restrict weapons ( also see above)
agree - on their premises.
5 I beleave people that go looking for confrontations while expressing a privilage they have, should not have that privlage.
disagree. This is America isn't it?
-
1 I don't like people that don't respect others wishes/ break the law then claim thier shit does not stink.
Depends on the wishes of the other, and if the local law is superseded by state law
2 I don't like people that use a law designed to help LEO for ones own intrests
If it's a law applicable to all, then no problem. having everyone follow it And since when did we create an uber-class of LEOs who have "special" rights and privileges?
3 I beleave property owners/mangers have every right to restrict weapons that come on thier property
True, unless such restrictions violate local or state laws. The law prevails.
4 employers have every right to restrict weapons ( also see above)
See answer to #3, applies here too
5 I beleave people that go looking for confrontations while expressing a privilage they have, should not have that privlage.
Wrong, liberty is the essence of life in this country.
BTW, ND got rid of the extensive testing requirements, just pass a test on the law. All for the better, since those tests can be used by the LEOs to deny citizens their rights.
-
BTW, ND got rid of the extensive testing requirements, just pass a test on the law. All for the better, since those tests can be used by the LEOs to deny citizens their rights.
Path,
What tests are you talking about?
-
Depends on the wishes of the other, and if the local law is superseded by state law
If it's a law applicable to all, then no problem. having everyone follow it And since when did we create an uber-class of LEOs who have "special" rights and privileges?
True, unless such restrictions violate local or state laws. The law prevails.
See answer to #3, applies here too
Wrong, liberty is the essence of life in this country.
BTW, ND got rid of the extensive testing requirements, just pass a test on the law. All for the better, since those tests can be used by the LEOs to deny citizens their rights.
what about places where firearms would be dangerous to personal and/or equipment... Should people still beloud to carry in those places where having a ferous metals near by could cost hundreds of thousands in damage? If so then who pays for the damage?
-
what about places where firearms would be dangerous to personal and/or equipment... Should people still beloud to carry in those places where having a ferous metals near by could cost hundreds of thousands in damage? If so then who pays for the damage?
Example, please.
-
How about an MRI machine?
-
Sorry, Don't know much about them, but will having an LCP in my pocket screw things up?
-
Any place there are strong magnetic fields or sensitive electronics.
MRIs have both... yes your LCP would skrew them up.
Just about anything releated power( plants, sub stations,... etc). You can also had "high" work in construction as there is no safe put your weapon( your in a harness remember) and by law every thing must be attached to you or the structure. degaussing coils, magnetic heating coils, microwave transmition stations ( radar, TV, raido)... I think you get the idea.
-
OK, you're talking about occupational hazards, not constitutional rights.
-
OK, you're talking about occupational hazards, not constitutional rights.
So why can those employers forbid them, but other can't? In a perfect world people would not carry where they are a danger to themselfs/others/ "stuff", but we all know that there are plenty out there that are too dumb or too "thick headed" to take it off.
There is not a job out there that having a 1 + lb (for the smallest pistols) hunk of metal some where on your body could not cuase harm or increase it.
-
The 'employers' aren't. The circumstances are.
BTW my Kel-Tek is well less than a pound fully loaded.
-
So its the job that makes it diffrent...
so where do we draw the line?
I can make a very strong case that you having the LCP in your pocket is a danger to yourself if you fall( and I don't mean it going bang)
I've seen some nasty "accidents" every thing from people cuting several inchs into thier leg with a skill saw, amputations and people getting thier ass "filled up" with paint from an airless. Whats the worst accident I've ever seen? A guy falling off the 2nd step of a 5' ladder on to cualking gun. Long story short the guy is on disablity and has a colostomy bag. All from falling from a hieght of 18" off the ground on to the grip and trigger of a cualking gun.
-
And your point is? I worked hazardous waste for 10 years. Line air, toxic atmosphere, confined space, etc. All dangerous. In some carrying would not really have made a diff. In some if there was a spark there would be a BIG boom.
Common sense is a good thing and if it IS dangerous (matches in a flammable atmosphere) then it is an OSHA matter. The 'possibility' that some one goes postal is NOT a reason to legislate nor is the 'feelings' of some one else a reason to forbid a persons rights.
-
We both know osha is a four letter word and does more harm then good.
So my question is, where do we draw the line when it is dangerous to carry and when its not? i'm not talking about the use of the gun, I'm talking about where having the gun on your person puts you in more danger.
For that matter you could also add in the type of concealed carry. For example an ankle holster is alot safer in a fall then a SOB or MOB holster in a fall ( several police officers have been put in wheel chairs for landing flat on thier back/ pushed into something and landed/ pushed into on something on thier duty belt)
-
So why can those employers forbid them, but other can't? In a perfect world people would not carry where they are a danger to themselfs/others/ "stuff", but we all know that there are plenty out there that are too dumb or too "thick headed" to take it off.
There is not a job out there that having a 1 + lb (for the smallest pistols) hunk of metal some where on your body could not cuase harm or increase it.
Employers in your examples are not prohibiting "GUNS" per se, but any thing that poses a potential saftey hazard. Thats no differant than saying no smoking while making fireworks.
I'm a machinist, I used to carry a 1911 in 1 shop (had deer, moose, and bear in the parking lot, and open bay doors.)
It was in a shoulder holster under my sweat shirt, It never got in the way.
-
Can I just say something here? ???
So my question is, where do we draw the line when it is dangerous to carry and when its not? i'm not talking about the use of the gun, I'm talking about where having the gun on your person puts you in more danger.
Isn't it an individuals decision if they want to take the chance on falling on their gun etc.. ?? I am a big girl. I don't need a keeper. If I fall on my gun and something happens...Then that is my fault and I will deal with it. It isn't anyone else's job or business to try to tell me what I need to do for my own good. I think that if I was going to have an MRI.. I would probably think it is safe to say I'd leave my gun in my truck and not have it on me when I went for my tests.. ;)
Just like seat belts, motorcycle helmets etc.. it is MY life and MY decision if I want to risk wearing or not wearing something that some one else deems dangerous.
Tha'ts all............ :-\
-
Can I just say something here? ???
Isn't it an individuals decision if they want to take the chance on falling on their gun etc.. ?? I am a big girl. I don't need a keeper. If I fall on my gun and something happens...Then that is my fault and I will deal with it. It isn't anyone else's job or business to try to tell me what I need to do for my own good. I think that if I was going to have an MRI.. I would probably think it is safe to say I'd leave my gun in my truck and not have it on me when I went for my tests.. ;)
Just like seat belts, motorcycle helmets etc.. it is MY life and MY decision if I want to risk wearing or not wearing something that some one else deems dangerous.
Tha'ts all............ :-\
Thats just it, it still hits your employers workmens comp. ( just so you know, if you have a perfect record, it still cost about half of what your employees earn per hour for comp alone. One claim and that can go up drasticly. More so if OSHA gets envoled ) Also what about when having a gun there would be dangerous to the property of the employer. A MRI machine is a perfect example, It does not take much in the way to do serious damage to it. Same with power plants. There is a reason why hammers that are made for use around strong perment magnets can cost over a grand( I'm not joking)even small ones are in the 300 range. Several things during the manufactory process are very sensitive to metal near by. In a perfect world the employee would have to pay for the damage, but we all know it does not work that.
-
I hope they arrest the guy, not for carrying a weapon... but for trespassing. Its pretty clear he has been warned not to goto the property. He is acting like a teenager.
First, my internet connection with Wildblue is really terrible and it takes minutes to load a page so I load, go work, etc., then come back. The reason I'm saying this is to apologize for not having time to read the rest of the thread to see what's going on.
Second, Tab, you have got to be kidding, right? Civil disobedience aimed at bad politicians (or bureacrats) and their laws, to make the politicians and laws conform goes back to the beginnings of the U.S. Allowing people who create laws that conflict with controlling law to serve their own agenda unchallenged is madness....it is basic support for fascism. Look back to the last century to see what the failure to stand against fascism brought on.....Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. All of these little tyrants got their start by working contrary to law...when punished for it, as in Hitler's case, the damage was delayed.
Tirades and "what if's" about someone doing something off-the-wall that's "not smart" is a fringe argument and is childish.
If someone feels a call and has a righteous crusade against a wrong they are to be applauded. It is right to support and encourage someone with such wonderful conviction. Standing against a bad law that conflicts with a superior law that some bureaucrat or politician does not want to conform with is surely righteous and cannot be debated with the silliness of impossible conditions, unlikely conditions and other fringe thinking "what if's". Fringe thinking as described in the last sentence is a foolish remnant of Greek thinking that entered the Western mind some centuries ago; that is fancied by academia's refusal to accept God and which resides, futhermore, in weak minds that prefer not to think.
It is easier to get along and to not stand. Within me I must make a stand. My mother may say at times it's better to smile, nod your head and go about your business. My aunts may say at times it's better to smile, nod your head and go about your business. My grandmother may have said it's better at times to smile, nod your head and go about your business.
But my father, grandfather, my uncles...did not say that in such abundance. They built things, chartered a town, ran businesses, and, in general accomplished things because they were not satisfied to be one in a crowd of many. It used to be that failure to stand, failure to be a man, was frowned on. Societal forces now are set to squash the honest man and to reward the foolish, lying and controlling one that deceives with a smile and makes the masses people feel good while using and stealing from them to acquire power that will be used to increase the deceptive one's influence and wealth.
It was once mostly the women who did not speak out. Shamefully, now men would be as women and cowardly fail to challenge bad things for fear of running afoul of the law. Not even my frail, 80 year old mother would, in this instance, agree with you.
-
Path,
What tests are you talking about?
Sorry, it was clear in my mind, can't the rest of you keep up? Or lag behind?? ;D
I was referring to the CCW tests. No range tests are required, no proof that you know which end of the barrel the bad things leaves, an assumption - since it's in the State Constitution - we're all adults and knowledgeable and capable of handling ourselves properly.
So all we need to do is prove we know the law by taking a 10-question test on the law.
I've heard that the lack of a range test is the primary reason that ND's CCW is not reciprocated in many of the other CCW states. Personally, I think that is an excuse coming from less than eager Attorneys General to deny reciprocity. At least I think that was true in PA case, as a letter from one AG to the other should have resolved the hold up. PA's AG chose not to send the letter, and we all know that PA is a CCW state against the "better" judgement of its gummint officials.
-
Tab,
There are always exceptions to the rule. Heck, I would bet there are exceptions to the law of gravity, but we do not make laws for the exceptions (or as Rastus calls it, the 'fringe'). We make laws for the most likely possibilities or to cover the most situations, and rely on people of rational mind to know when they do not apply. That is one reason we have a court system and a jury. They can make a decision that 'in this case' the law did not apply and you are innocent.
Trying to plan for the 'what ifs' is not possible or desirable because at the least, it will become much too complicated not to mention it is like talking to a three year old that has just discovered the word 'why'.
As an NCO I was taught to give as few orders as possible because once I give an order on a subject I stifle thought and will be looked to by the troops to give an order in every similar situation. Instead give guidance and allow them to come up with the best solution.
For CCW guidance is given in many ways, classes, experience, knowledge (strong magnets and guns = not good, fire and bullets = not good), even signage as to a particular environment you will be exposed to (microwaves and pace makers), but in none of these instances is anyone forbidden from any given activity, just guided as to risks. Yes there are exceptions to this rule (fireworks present, no smoking) but notice those signs don't say 'no open flame, no burning incense, etc because they have given you guidance on why that would be a bad idea.
-
Path,
Come on down to FL. Our law states we will recognize any state that will recognize ours! ND is on the list.
-
Haz the no smoking signs near flamables is the law.
I'm sure your also awear that a good number of people in the US don't see sigins or flat out ignore them.
-
Haz the no smoking signs near flamables is the law.
I'm sure your also awear that a good number of people in the US don't see sigins or flat out ignore them.
Yes, I know that and attempted to imply that in my statement. That is also why I pointed out that the sign does not list every possible dangerous act, just smoking. We, as reasoning people should be able and are expected to extrapolate from the 'no smoking' sign/law.
-
I've seen people sit ontop of thinner cans and smoke while washing out brushes. Signs do not work and people that should know better often don't. So why not give the employer means to prevent as many "head aches" as they can. If your an employer and you currently don't have a head ache, wait five mins... One will start.
-
TAB,
There's not a law that can be created that will protect you or your business from stupid, irresponsible people. Neither employer's policies nor legislative fiats make people act intelligently.
It would appear that all your ranting about rights, privileges, et al is nothing more than your desire for your rights to supersede ours. Is all your ranting about your desire to CYA?
-
TAB,
There's not a law that can be created that will protect you or your business from stupid, irresponsible people. Neither employer's policies nor legislative fiats make people act intelligently.
It would appear that all your ranting about rights, privileges, et al is nothing more than your desire for your rights to supersede ours. Is all your ranting about your desire to CYA?
Thats not what its about at all, but lets just say for the sake of argument that is what I am about. Isn't that the same as the people that want to carry? after all we are both trying to protect ourselfs from a life altering event.
In reality what I am about is rights, every ones rights. If you notice I've never said anything about restricting carry in place you have to go, only in the place where you have a choice.
Let the market place make that choice, not the goverment.
-
Much the same as policies or laws, the existence of a right will not make people act intelligently or responsibility either.
Your arguments appear to be generally fallacious cherry picking. More specifically you have fallen victim to the Nirvana fallacy. There is no perfect solution to your concerns regarding CCW. Any solution to the problems you point out are necessarily dependent on an individual level personal responsibility.
-
Much the same as policies or laws, the existence of a right will not make people act intelligently or responsibility either.
Your arguments appear to be generally fallacious cherry picking. More specifically you have fallen victim to the Nirvana fallacy. There is no perfect solution to your concerns regarding CCW. Any solution to the problems you point out are necessarily dependent on an individual level personal responsibility.
Can't argue this.
Personal responsibility is just that...being responsible for your actions. If you are uncomfortable with your own responsbility please don't attempt to push your own personal fears on others. So what about increased insurance costs....charge more and get over it. Can't compete because someone else won't play by the rules and buy insurance or conform to "whatever" because laws are not enforced...wake up and welcome to the nanny state where it's all about making you feel safe amid the gaping holes of hallowed liberalism. Still want to play "their" game and play by selectively enforced rules and laws that enslave you and empower "them"....then reread Tom's avatar statement.