deanf
Regular Member
imported post
Again, simmer down. No reason to get nasty.
To make it simple: no duh.
Again, no duh.
I guess my only question is, why are you making arguments about things which we are not discussing?
I'm not anti-gun. I personally believe anyone of any age should be able to own and carry any gun anywhere. I also know that as much as I wish my beliefs were reality; they are not. There are certain restrictions on the right to own and carry guns, including (potentially) in this case. Now, for the THIRD TIME, this government-as-private-property-owner argument, vis-a-vis it's authority to set administrative rules of conduct on it's property, is not yet settled.
That's all I'm pointing out.
dean piss up a rope and learn to read what was written.
Again, simmer down. No reason to get nasty.
City Agencies do not have the authority to enforce any rules upon citizens that are in violation of the State Constitution or State Law.
To make it simple: no duh.
The State Legislature are the only ones that can make or change the law not an agency.
Again, no duh.
I guess my only question is, why are you making arguments about things which we are not discussing?
Go ahead and continue with your promoting anti-gun agenda.
I'm not anti-gun. I personally believe anyone of any age should be able to own and carry any gun anywhere. I also know that as much as I wish my beliefs were reality; they are not. There are certain restrictions on the right to own and carry guns, including (potentially) in this case. Now, for the THIRD TIME, this government-as-private-property-owner argument, vis-a-vis it's authority to set administrative rules of conduct on it's property, is not yet settled.
That's all I'm pointing out.