• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

This isn't a trick question

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
We still have the House and probably the Senate - with due diligence I think we can stop any bad bills. Just don't expect to get any pro bills signed by the new Gov - so the only hope there is to maybe see a veto proof majority on a few.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Do all y'all want Section B "corrected" to have it state specifically that the screening is to detect the presence of metal objects that may be guns, which seems the most logical explanation of what the drafter was trying to say?

Would that really make the bill any better?

I'm still hung up on how the Capitol Police are going to determine who is lawfully possessing a handgun and who is not. With all the attendant flaws the current procedure reduces the capitol Police to one objective measure. For ease of moving large numbers of people through a checkpoint nothing beats governmental permission slips. I happen to agree with the loudest opponent of that process that there should be "something else" but I'm darned if I can figure out what it might be that does not involve submitting to governmental pre-approval. Perhaps the collective hive experience can figure it out?

stay safe.
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Do all y'all want Section B "corrected" to have it state specifically that the screening is to detect the presence of metal objects that may be guns, which seems the most logical explanation of what the drafter was trying to say?

Would that really make the bill any better?

I'm still hung up on how the Capitol Police are going to determine who is lawfully possessing a handgun and who is not. With all the attendant flaws the current procedure reduces the capitol Police to one objective measure. For ease of moving large numbers of people through a checkpoint nothing beats governmental permission slips. I happen to agree with the loudest opponent of that process that there should be "something else" but I'm darned if I can figure out what it might be that does not involve submitting to governmental pre-approval. Perhaps the collective hive experience can figure it out?

stay safe.

I agree with you, Skid. The sub-rosa intent of this bill is to prevent ANYone from carrying into the GAB, The People's House. The bill's proponent as much as said so when he proposed courthouse-type lockers where carriers would have to give up their firearms upon entering. It seems like the bill's proponent has no clue how many hundreds of lockers would be needed on Lobby Day...

OTOH, The screening process seems completely unnecessary. LACs with CHPs (Sorry, Peter), have ALREADY been screened and found to be legal possessors of handguns, so that "permission slip" provision should not be abrogated. For LACs who do not have a CHP the question remains open regarding what the Capitol Police will impose as their screening process. That's why I believe the bill, if it's not killed outright in Committee, must be amended to include specifics on what the Capitol Police will create as a screening process. Otherwise, the legislators will vote blindly and give the Capitol Police carte blanche in creating onerous procedures ... which, I believe, is the intent of the bill.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
OTOH, The screening process seems completely unnecessary. LACs with CHPs (Sorry, Peter), have ALREADY been screened and found to be legal possessors of handguns, so that "permission slip" provision should not be abrogated.

No need to be sorry James, if I'm anything, its a realist. That exists and isn't going to get changed in the next 4 years.

Fortunately, I'm not one of those people that feels defenseless without my gun. Annoyed ...but not defenseless and as it is now, I can bypass screening completely while CHP's can't. I accept that as an equitable trade off for the time being.

This bill would change it for everyone though and the "Peoples House" would be no more.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
No matter how you brush its coat, this dog has fleas n' ticks n' mange and somebody wants to make it house pet? I don't think so!
 
Last edited:
Top