If Guns Kill People...............

Perhaps you should show your point by LISTING Government buildings YOU CAN waltz around packing your gun!

The law, which took effect Sept. 1, restricts the authority of mayors, commissioners, sheriffs and other local officials to ban the concealed carry of handguns in government buildings under their control,

unless the building already is included on a list of approved gun-free zones in state law.

Those zones include courts, polling places, public school campuses, airports, racetracks and places where public meetings take place, such as city council chambers.

Your LIST said ALL, with exception of what YOU LISTED.

Did you include Polling Places ? no
Public School Campuses? no
Racetracks? no
City council "chambers"? no

Post Offices do not allow concealed guns in their buildings ~ and their policies extend to in vehicles/ their parking lot and sidewalks on their property.

Some building are still being debated that have multi-use ~ and the discussion is over a concealed gun carrier being able to carry in SOME rooms of the building, but prohibited from carrying in CERTAIN rooms.

And? So? The question of IF one can carry, would THEN fall under a leasers right to prohibit for a venue he would be responsible for according to his lease contract and the law.

 

Mine are the same credentials, afforded any Citizen who achieves opening and studying the USC and CFR and Statutes of the state in which they have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction thereof.

You as an "instructor" to "your" students who have solicited "you as their" instructor, begins a relationship of "their" reliance on "you" being knowledgeable of the laws, to which they will be subject to, when carrying a concealed weapon.

When you "teach", "ALL" places are acceptable to carry, EXCEPT for a few, and you do not INCLUDE a FULL LISTING of the "FEW" exceptions, you give them unreliable information.

 

Happy have you ever been in Law Enforcement or the Military even?

Thanks

HankD

 

No. Have you "even"? And? What is your point?

 

Yes and just curious Happy.

HankD

 

Thank you for your service.

I am not without a history of ancestors and very close relatives who have served in the military since this country was established, even today, military and including law enforcement and investigation. I do not presume "THEIR" service makes them an authority that applies to everyone else, as some "know it all's" carrying a card project themselves.

Laws that apply to one person, does not patently apply to all others.

We decide whom we elect to trust what they say. And a very basic principle of Scripture is to VERIFY what you hear, (with Scripture). I support that principle, and further support the same principle regarding what you hear someone telling you the "law", "rules", "regulations", to be verified with the law, rules & regulations of the particular jurisdiction.

Actually..."most" is not all encompassing.
Actually... "gun buster" signs carry no legal weight in Texas Law applicable to Government.

My point being; each should verify, according to the law, that which applies to them.

My point being; I don't care HOW "all knowing" Cassidy attempts to present himself....what applies to "him" does not in ALL cases apply to everyone else.

My point being; I do not have to TRUST everything Cassidy says.

My point being; Those who are satisfied he is a "know it all", of that which "applies" to him, ALSO applies to them; does not affect me, nor does their jumping on bandwagon of Cassidy's attempted exalting himself above me. (and BTW, that comment does not apply to you).

 

OK,

Yes and if you check the archives of the BB you will see that Dr. Cassidy and I have locked horns on MANY occasions.

Hopefully I am an enigma to him.

HankD

 

""

 

It is good not to trust everything people say. It is also bad to expect people to think that those who rant are not nuts.

 

People in general do not hesitate to suggest umpteen laws should be enacted, however I think your "roll-eyes" is as well a consensus of the greater population, to actually of their own volition know what laws apply to them or even how to even look up a law and it's regulations. Pretty sad.

 

Some people think having an in-depth conversation or explaining is ranting, but then such an attitude is to be expected when the general public at large can't handle much more than a headline.

 

No, you misunderstood the post. The key is in the quotes.

 

"use to" ? You just did. However I am not required to submit to your brand of Christian behavior and dictation.

 

I have paid close attention to what you say and how you said it, and sort of nauseating to me, so again, gunna by pass your dictation.

Your rhetoric has for several posts sounded like an angry old man that is afraid it won't be long before no one is interested in what you have to say..

Are you a head of household zealot?

 

Don't know what you mean.

 

"That" is "apparent". *laugh*