26 DEAD

9andaWiggle

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Down here, open carry of a hand gun is covered by the laws governing LTC (Licensed To Carry). Unless signage by the property owner dictates otherwise, we can open carry a handgun where legal to concealed carry - but the weapon must be in a shoulder or belt holster.

Also... cannot carry any weapon into an establishment that generates 51% or more of their income from alcohol sales. There is signage such places must post alerting the public of this restriction. Also, professional sporting events are a no-carry zone. It's a felony to carry when intoxicated.
 
W

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
NOONE ON HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE CAN SAY HE WOULD HAVE BUILT A BOMB, DROVE A TRUCK THRU OR ANY OTHER FORM OF KILLING ATLEAST 26 PEOPLE. HE DID HOWEVER USE A GUN, AND I CAN PROVE THAT! GT GOT IT RIGHT, WE HAVE BECOME SO IMMUNE TO KILLING, ITS JUST A PART OF LIFE. WE HAVE JUST BECOME STONE. WHEN THOSE PEOPLE WENT TO CHURCH TO PRAY, NOT MY THING THOUGH, THEY WERE PURSUING THEIR RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND YADA YADA. THAT ONE GUY TOOK ATLEAST 26 PEOPLES RIGHTS AWAY FROM THEM WITHOUT A THOUGHT. KEEPING IN THE SPIRIT OF OUR FOREFATHERS FOR THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS, JUST TAKE THE AMENDMENT BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM. SINGLE SHOT RIFLES AND PISTOLS. NO MORE 53 OR 26 DEAD IN A MATER OF MINUTES.
 
D

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Laws here in Bama are a little strange. Open carry is legal without a permit but cannot open carry on private property if there or clearly marked signs not allowing it or there is private security on the premises. However, private security signs and or surveillance signs must be posted.

I don't know if those laws apply to conceal carry.
 
9andaWiggle

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Interesting... read in a USA Today article that he had recently (withim the last couple of years) purchased the firearms. Interesting because the circumstances surrounding his dishonorable discharge supposedly were equal to Felony charges in the civilian world. This means he was not allowed to have weapons, and should not have the passed the background checks to obtain weapons - but apparently he did.

So what we have here is a failure of existing laws / checks already on the books to do what they are intended to do - keep weapons out of the hands of those who should not legally have them.
 
Greg T.

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
WAMO said:
NOONE ON HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE CAN SAY HE WOULD HAVE BUILT A BOMB, DROVE A TRUCK THRU OR ANY OTHER FORM OF KILLING ATLEAST 26 PEOPLE. HE DID HOWEVER USE A GUN, AND I CAN PROVE THAT! GT GOT IT RIGHT, WE HAVE BECOME SO IMMUNE TO KILLING, ITS JUST A PART OF LIFE. WE HAVE JUST BECOME STONE. WHEN THOSE PEOPLE WENT TO CHURCH TO PRAY, NOT MY THING THOUGH, THEY WERE PURSUING THEIR RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND YADA YADA. THAT ONE GUY TOOK ATLEAST 26 PEOPLES RIGHTS AWAY FROM THEM WITHOUT A THOUGHT. KEEPING IN THE SPIRIT OF OUR FOREFATHERS FOR THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS, JUST TAKE THE AMENDMENT BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM. SINGLE SHOT RIFLES AND PISTOLS. NO MORE 53 OR 26 DEAD IN A MATER OF MINUTES.
Click to expand...
Oh no. You're not going there with this. If you're going to take the 2A back 200 years then you'd better take the 1A back as well. You may freedom of speech...ONLY. No typing, no internet, no phones, no billboards, to TV no radio, etc. You can't pick and choose the parts of the constitution that may fit your agenda. The 2A was written as it was so that WE THE PEOPLE can protect ourselves. Not just against others, but from the government as well. Whatever the government has for weaponry so shall the public. You want to go back to witch hunts too?
 
W

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
G, THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING WITH YOU. YOU WANT TO FOLLOW THE PART THAT FITS YOUR AGENDA. DIFFERENCE? IM NOT SURE, BUT I WILL LOOK WHEN I GET BACK IN FROM WORK TONIGHT, BUT HOW MANY TIMES HAS THE 1A BEEN AMENDED AS THE 2A HAS? AND I THINK YOU KNOW WITCH HUNTS ARE HAPPENEING, MUSLUM ENTRY INTO THE COUNTRY RING A BELL.
 
Greg T.

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
WAMO said:
G, THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING WITH YOU. YOU WANT TO FOLLOW THE PART THAT FITS YOUR AGENDA. DIFFERENCE? IM NOT SURE, BUT I WILL LOOK WHEN I GET BACK IN FROM WORK TONIGHT, BUT HOW MANY TIMES HAS THE 1A BEEN AMENDED AS THE 2A HAS? AND I THINK YOU KNOW WITCH HUNTS ARE HAPPENEING, MUSLUM ENTRY INTO THE COUNTRY RING A BELL.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to clear that up for me. Didn't grasp your point. Muslims have nothing to do with the constitution nor it's amendments, nor the 1A. I don't follow you. BUT, the 2A isn't what grants us the right to defend ourselves. The constitution does that. The 2A is only there to make sure that THAT RIGHT IS NOT INFRINGED. It's just as important today as it was when drafted.
 
L

livespive

Well-Known Member
From what I had hear his court-martial and stuff didn't get transferred to the federal registry.
If it would have, when they did the background check it would have flagged him........

we don't need more control, we just need to fix what is here. The same is true of a lot of things.
 
W

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
WELL YOU BROUGHT UP THE WITCH HUNT THING. SEEMS LIKE WHATS HAPPENING IN THE WORLD TODAY IS AKIN TO THE SAME THING, BUT WITH GOOD REASON. AND THE 1A DOES COVER BILLBOARDS, INTERNET, TYPING, TV, RADIO, ETC... THEY ARE COVERED FROM THE DAY THE 1A WAS WRITTEN.
 
9andaWiggle

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Here's another black eye for the Federal Government: he was denied a Texas CHL when they did a background check (due to past domestic abuse convictions). But passed the background check for the rifles.

http://m.chron.com/news/politics/te...hurch-shooter-had-no-CHL-did-not-12335042.php

So Texas must've had him in their database, but the Feds did not? Why wouldn't a background check include the state, or even all states (since he listed a Colorado address on the paperwork for the rifles)?
 
L

livespive

Well-Known Member
Because it is a pissing match, and now they see first hand the trouble that it has caused.

One state brags that they have gun control, one state brags that they are proud of the 2A
so they don't cooperate and someone slips through the cracks.


9andaWiggle said:
Here's another black eye for the Federal Government: he was denied a Texas CHL when they did a background check (due to past domestic abuse convictions). But passed the background check for the rifles.

http://m.chron.com/news/politics/te...hurch-shooter-had-no-CHL-did-not-12335042.php

So Texas must've had him in their database, but the Feds did not? Why wouldn't a background check include the state, or even all states (since he listed a Colorado address on the paperwork for the rifles)?
Click to expand...
 
Greg T.

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
WAMO said:
WELL YOU BROUGHT UP THE WITCH HUNT THING. SEEMS LIKE WHATS HAPPENING IN THE WORLD TODAY IS AKIN TO THE SAME THING, BUT WITH GOOD REASON. AND THE 1A DOES COVER BILLBOARDS, INTERNET, TYPING, TV, RADIO, ETC... THEY ARE COVERED FROM THE DAY THE 1A WAS WRITTEN.
Click to expand...
Yup. And so does the 2A cover weaponry. Just as it did when it was written. Thanx for making my point.
 
9andaWiggle

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
livespive said:
Because it is a pissing match, and now they see first hand the trouble that it has caused.

One state brags that they have gun control, one state brags that they are proud of the 2A
so they don't cooperate and someone slips through the cracks.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this is even State vs State. I do wonder why the state of Texas had a flag when he tried to get a CHL, but nothing from the feds when trying to buy a rifle - I'd think State would report to the Fed. If it's as easy as providing false information that doesn't match the database (address, for example, as in this case), then that loophole needs to be closed. There are websites that list every place I have ever lived and the dates. I find it hard to believe the Federal Government doesn't have the same data to make an easy connection or raise flags during the background check. Plus, giving a Colorado address to buy a gun in TX. I dunno, maybe that should raise flags for extra scrutiny? I know some won't like that, but if this is how people are trying to skirt the law...
 
L

livespive

Well-Known Member
I think that falls under freedom of religion. Being a Muslim is a religion, although can the ban work because they are not citizens?
If Trump was trying to deport Muslims that might be an issue.

Greg T. said:
You're going to have to clear that up for me. Didn't grasp your point. Muslims have nothing to do with the constitution nor it's amendments, nor the 1A. I don't follow you. BUT, the 2A isn't what grants us the right to defend ourselves. The constitution does that. The 2A is only there to make sure that THAT RIGHT IS NOT INFRINGED. It's just as important today as it was when drafted.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top