Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: "Herb Martin" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:06:37 -0500
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9A8EB84C7BEEFjyanikkuanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Herb Martin" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:48162462$2$30520$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
"Chad" <cbstun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:48161197$0$30466$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Herb Martin" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4814fcce$0$31757$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Chad" <cbstun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:48147af1$0$13947$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1) ALL visitors, even police officers are required to disarm on
entry
(only guards employed and trained in THAT prison may be
exempt from this rule and only under certain conditions and
safety guidelines)
2) A facility for SECURING the firearm is provided -- i.e., a
lockup
so that visitors do not have to disarm BEFORE the visit, on
the trip to and from the facility etc., they may "check their
weapon" safely.
3) ALL visitors are equally subject to search and/or metal
detectors
to
ensure the rules are enforced -- applies to visiting police
of
course
4) Armed guards are provided -- at the periphery, entrances and
exits
-- who enforce the above rules
5) No one is required to visit that location as a matter of
ordinary
life (school, business, commerce)
Now there is a reasonable "gun free zone" that might actually work.
Notice that weapons (and even guns) REGULARLY show up INSIDE
of prisons so this is not guarantee but it is about as close as we
can manage and thus the necessity of #5 above -- no one is forced,
even by normal necessities of life to visit such a facility.
If you can think of another candidate for a "Gun Free Zone" that can
or does meet these requirements I would be interested to hear of it.
I already agree that gun-free zones don't sound sensible or
justifiable on the evidence I know about.
That's sort of the way we feel about Australia <BIG GRIN>
I 'assume' the law makers consider them constitutional as private
property owners rights trump yours in these cases.
Not always nor everywhere. But mainly the issue of laws should cover
government restrictions.
What is your reasoning for them being unconstitutional?
My rights to life and self-defense trump your rights to property when
push comes to shove.
for "private" property that is open to the public;commercial
properties,including parking lots.
Yes. And Florida has recently enacted a law which I support
(and some other RKBA supporters oppose) that allows employees
to leave their (legal) firearms LOCKED in their car while parked
on the employers premises.
To do otherwise would egregiously violate the employees rights
to self-defense and RKBA on the way to and from work, as well
as the employees PROPERTY rights (within their own automobile.)
My contention is that once the employer (or business) provides
parking they must accept the legal contents of MY property.
They can either SELL or otherwise use the Parking lot or accept
that MY property rights, plus the far more important rights to life,
self-defense, and RKBA take precedence within my car.
and one has to be lawfully on the premises.
Once you let my car and everybody else's on the property you
do NOT inherit rights to my property.
All or nothing, especially since property rights are subordinate
in importance to Life, Liberty, Self-Defense, and RKBA.
.
- References:
- Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: PLMerite
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Chad
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: JoeSpareBedroom
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Chad
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: JoeSpareBedroom
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Chad
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: JoeSpareBedroom
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Chad
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: JoeSpareBedroom
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Chad
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Scout
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Chad
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: JoeSpareBedroom
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Chad
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Scout
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Chad
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Scout
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Chad
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Scout
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Chad
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Herb Martin
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Chad
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Herb Martin
- Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- From: Jim Yanik
- Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- Prev by Date: Re: Fed LEO's with a Mini-gun
- Next by Date: Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- Previous by thread: Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- Next by thread: Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|