Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Temporary gun ban at UoU for Sotomayor

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Temporary gun ban at UoU for Sotomayor

    According to local media Supreme Court Associate Justice Sotomayer will be speaking at the University of Utah next Wednesday, Jan. 28 at noon in the Huntsman Center.

    "In accordance with federal security guidelines, no guns or other weapons will be permitted at the venue for Sotomayor’s visit. Visitors will be required to pass through a metal detector and have their bags checked before entering the seating area."

    While this conflicts with State law, it is my opinion that the event is not the place for responsible gun owners to make any kind of scene or disturbance, doubly so not while armed. Federal agents providing protection to high profile government officials have no sense of humor and are not big on arguing. Their job is to assure the safety of their protectee and federal courts have given wide latitude in how they do that.

    I do not know whether the entire building or some smaller portion will be off limits to otherwise legal guns and those at the University should plan accordingly.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    Bottom of the Slippery Slope. Temporary gun ban in USA for Obama

    "In accordance with federal security guidelines, no guns or other weapons will be permitted in the venue for the President's tenure. Citizens will be required to pass through a metal detector and have their bags checked before entering the area. Federal agents providing protection to high profile government officials have no sense of humor and are not big on arguing. Their job is to assure the safety of their protectee and federal courts have given wide latitude in how they do that.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-20-2015 at 05:43 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "In accordance with federal security guidelines, no guns or other weapons will be permitted in the venue for the President's tenure. Citizens will be required to pass through a metal detector and have their bags checked before entering the area. Federal agents providing protection to high profile government officials have no sense of humor and are not big on arguing. Their job is to assure the safety of their protectee and federal courts have given wide latitude in how they do that.
    Of course the most notable thing about this event in Utah is that it results in a one day gun ban in one building, on one campus, in conflict with State law. This in contrast to the law in Wisconsin signed in 2011 that allows colleges to ban guns in all of their buildings, 24/7. "As of August 21, 2013, no private or public universities, colleges, or community colleges permit weapons inside of buildings. "

    Let me know when you manage to get Wisconsin laws so good that a one day gun ban, in one building is newsworthy.

    Until then, you might slow down on the satire about the situation in Utah.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 01-20-2015 at 06:24 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I doubt it conflicts with state law any more than any other federal thing which takes priority. Would you say that POTUS also should not be allowed a gun-free room during his visits?

    It's just slightly more newsworthy in this instance because it's a university, and UT is one of only a handful of states that allow guns there anyway.

    If Utah truly doesn't like it, the best way to avoid this is to not let them come. Indeed, I'd like to see a lot more snubbing of federal government by states. As a nation, we've completely forgotten which one was supposed to be more powerful.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430

    Judicial Security Division of the US Marshal Service

    The United States Marshals Service, Judicial Security Division (JSD), is committed to the protection of the judicial process – by ensuring the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings and protecting federal judges, jurors and other members of the federal judiciary. This mission is accomplished by anticipating and deterring threats to the judiciary, and the continuous development and employment of innovative protective techniques. The JSD is organized into two program areas, Judicial Operations and Judicial Services.

    http://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial/

    225 Years of U.S Marshals Service History. Very interesting history.

    3 U.S Marshals where at Valley Forge with George Washington.

    http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/index.html
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I doubt it conflicts with state law any more than any other federal thing which takes priority. Would you say that POTUS also should not be allowed a gun-free room during his visits?
    <snip>.

    You bet ! What, you cannot call him a bad president either? Or he can walk up to you and demand DNA and blood samples?

    Perhaps you should house the SS officials too?

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I doubt it conflicts with state law any more than any other federal thing which takes priority.
    There is the thing. What is a federal "thing". Is there a federal law that says the marshals (or secret service) can create gun free zones? Federal policy? Internal department policy?

    No doubt the feds have priority in how to manage federal facilities like post offices and military reservations. (I'll leave any discussion of the fact that the feds--ie congress controlled by east coast States--presumes to "own" 60% of my State and a similar amount of all other States west of the Kansas/Colorado State line in contradiction of the "equal footing" doctrine.)

    But what proper authority do they have to over-ride State laws for management of State institutions? Or the operation of State police agencies?

    As a side note, Justice Scalia spoke at Utah State University 6 or so years ago and did not have any unusual security during his speech. I wonder to what extend there is some heightened concern for security in the intervening period vs how much personal preferences of the Justices may factor into such things.

    A month or so ago, ome whiny private author was scheduled to speed at Utah State and cancelled when the university declined, per State law, to ban legally carried private guns. We figure it was mostly a PR stunt on her part.

    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Would you say that POTUS also should not be allowed a gun-free room during his visits?
    It is exactly the same situation. And I believe in both cases there is a conflict with State law.

    Now, to be clear, my personal view is that State law ought to be updated to explicitly permit the creation of temporary gun free zones under the very limited circumstances of the secret service or federal marshals determining it necessary to the security of a protectee. The law should spell out appropriate limitations and protections for RKBA, including requiring appropriate storage for private guns carried to the venue.

    I believe that the person of certain high profile government offices must be afforded extra security and protections. And a temporary gun free venue where real security is provided to all in attendance is a reasonable balance in my view. Others will doubtless castigate me as some kind of turncoat or state worshiper for holding this position. So be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    It's just slightly more newsworthy in this instance because it's a university, and UT is one of only a handful of states that allow guns there anyway.
    It isn't jus that we allow them, but we explicitly prevent the university administration from discriminating against the lawful possession of guns by either students, employees, or guests. Heaven knows the liberals who dominate acadamia would love to impose such discrimination if they could. That they fail to see the clear connection to the abhorrent racist policies of their predecessors is sad, but not surprising.

    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    If Utah truly doesn't like it, the best way to avoid this is to not let them come. Indeed, I'd like to see a lot more snubbing of federal government by states. As a nation, we've completely forgotten which one was supposed to be more powerful.
    "Utah" has very little ability to act as a monolith. Cleary the University community is thrilled to have her come and more than thrilled to have an excuse to ban guns however briefly. I'm thrilled to have her come. I simply note that we seem to have a conflict between what State law permits/requires and what may make good sense for security.

    We could try to prevent the U or any other government entity not allowed to create such secure zones from hosting the Associate Justice. A private venue--including one of our private colleges--could host the speech and assist with the creation of a gun free security zone without any conflict with State law at all.

    Again, personally I think that is not a good PR move on our part even if we could pull it off. I believe we should use these rare, but generally good events, to modify State law appropriately.

    And while I'm all for States asserting their authority, I don't think snubbing of individual government officials is the right way to go. We need more dialogue in this nation among those who don't agree with each other. I wish I could get every congressman, every federal judge, and every federal bureaucrat east of Colorado to come spend enough in Utah talking to us to come to some real understanding of what makes the Intermountain West a very different place to live than is the east coast. That would do the nation far more good than just snubbing someone who disagrees with me.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I doubt it conflicts with state law any more than any other federal thing which takes priority. Would you say that POTUS also should not be allowed a gun-free room during his visits?

    It's just slightly more newsworthy in this instance because it's a university, and UT is one of only a handful of states that allow guns there anyway.

    If Utah truly doesn't like it, the best way to avoid this is to not let them come. Indeed, I'd like to see a lot more snubbing of federal government by states. As a nation, we've completely forgotten which one was supposed to be more powerful.
    I have not forgotten about the States and that's part of my reason why I fly the Idaho flag over the American flag on my property. I'm an Idaho citizen first and an American second.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    There is the thing. What is a federal "thing". Is there a federal law that says the marshals (or secret service) can create gun free zones? Federal policy? Internal department policy?

    But what proper authority do they have to over-ride State laws for management of State institutions? Or the operation of State police agencies?

    As a side note, Justice Scalia spoke at Utah State University 6 or so years ago and did not have any unusual security during his speech. I wonder to what extend there is some heightened concern for security in the intervening period vs how much personal preferences of the Justices may factor into such things.



    It is exactly the same situation. And I believe in both cases there is a conflict with State law.


    I believe that the person of certain high profile government offices must be afforded extra security and protections. And a temporary gun free venue where real security is provided to all in attendance is a reasonable balance in my view. Others will doubtless castigate me as some kind of turncoat or state worshiper for holding this position. So be it.
    It is almost like a visiting diplomat from another country. They have immunity. They can't be searched or prosecuted for breaking our laws.

    In reality, the federal government is a foreign entity to a state. The states are sovereign "countries". We agreed to be united and become "as one" through the federal government. The feds are our servants, not our masters, so the states can get together and change anything about the federal government we don't like.

    So, to the point I am trying to make, when a Federal "Dignitary" like Sotomayor visits, It would seem the Federal Marshals Service may have the same latitude to protect their principle as they see fit. How much influence the principle has in the level of security the Service will provide is unknown to me.

    Utah may even concede security to the Marshals as a courtesy and frankly, why should the state need to pay for her security anyway?

    And to answer the question as to what authority the feds have, I believe it is the Supremacy Clause.

    Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    And to answer the question as to what authority the feds have, I believe it is the Supremacy Clause.

    Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
    Sure thing, if in fact there is a law, properly passed by congress and signed by the president at some point.

    But is there such a law? Or just an agency policy? Or some other lessor "thing"?

    Certainly federal laws, properly enacted pursuant to delegated constitutional powers are supreme to any conflicting State laws. But not every whim of some federal agent is supreme to State law.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    205

    Real security is NOT provided to "all"...

    Now, to be clear, my personal view is that State law ought to be updated to explicitly permit the creation of temporary gun free zones under the very limited circumstances of the secret service or federal marshals determining it necessary to the security of a protectee. The law should spell out appropriate limitations and protections for RKBA, including requiring appropriate storage for private guns carried to the venue.

    I believe that the person of certain high profile government offices must be afforded extra security and protections. And a temporary gun free venue where real security is provided to ?ALL? in attendance is a reasonable balance in my view. Others will doubtless castigate me as some kind of turncoat or state worshiper for holding this position. So be it.



    Just a reminder that the gun free venue is not intended to provide real security to anyone but the protectee. That is the focus of the Marshals and the campus police. Everybody else is pretty much SOL if a bad guy manages to sneak a gun/bomb/Klingon Disrupter into the event. Sucks to be the hostage...

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by johnfenter View Post
    Just a reminder that the gun free venue is not intended to provide real security to anyone but the protectee. That is the focus of the Marshals and the campus police. Everybody else is pretty much SOL if a bad guy manages to sneak a gun/bomb/Klingon Disrupter into the event. Sucks to be the hostage...
    All true. But I can't find much better solution at this point except perhaps to add police with the job to provide general protection while the feds protect their guy.

    All of the advantages that guns provide for self defense, all the things that make private arms such a deterrent to government tyranny, are precisely the things that make them very dangerous to the rare, very high value government official. And just as we say about carrying guns, it isn't about the odds, it is the stakes.

    If nothing else, nobody is really required to attend any such political event and so those who determine the risks of going unarmed are too high are free to avoid the event and maybe get a better seat at home watching on TV.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Sure thing, if in fact there is a law, properly passed by congress and signed by the president at some point.

    But is there such a law? Or just an agency policy? Or some other lessor "thing"?

    Certainly federal laws, properly enacted pursuant to delegated constitutional powers are supreme to any conflicting State laws. But not every whim of some federal agent is supreme to State law.

    Charles
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

    U.S. Constitution › Article VI
    Article VI

    All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    U.S. Constitution › Article VI
    I haven't the foggiest idea what point you are making.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Until then, you might slow down on the satire about the situation in Utah.
    You're right, Charles. Utah has such amazing gun laws that an illegal one day ban doesn't give anybody from other states standing to ridicule it.

    Surely there's a Utah-only gun forum where you can post this without having your highbrow discussion muddied by us proles.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    ...

    If nothing else, nobody is really required to attend any such political event and so those who determine the risks of going unarmed are too high are free to avoid the event and maybe get a better seat at home watching on TV.

    Charles
    Or, UoU could respectfully decline to host the visit thus conforming to state law where the RKBA is concerned. Placing the burden on the citizenry is usually the first option with bureaucrats. If a top judges wants a Utah crowd to hear her words, rent a private hall like many folks do and then the RKBA issue is moot.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    You're right, Charles. Utah has such amazing gun laws that an illegal one day ban doesn't give anybody from other states standing to ridicule it.
    <snip>.
    So Marshaul is going to limit his postings to those matters that concern only his own state?

    This forum is not a court of law...standing is not required.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    So Marshaul is going to limit his postings to those matters that concern only his own state?

    This forum is not a court of law...standing is not required.
    It appears your sarcasm detector is broken. I suggest you get it in for a tune-up ASAP.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605
    A lot of discussion for what seems to be straight forward message from the Feds and U of U.

    1) We only care about the safety of Justice Sotomayer.

    2) Your rights (more like government granted privileges) have been suspended.

    3) You and your families safety mean nothing to us, and there's not a d@mn thing you can do about it.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by OC Freedom View Post
    A lot of discussion for what seems to be straight forward message from the Feds and U of U.

    1) We only care about the safety of Justice Sotomayer.

    2) Your rights (more like government granted privileges) have been suspended.

    3) You and your families safety mean nothing to us, and there's not a d@mn thing you can do about it.
    1. The same applies everywhere to anyone under Secret Service protection.
    2. Only in the place and during the time she is there, IF YOU CHOOSE to be there, also.

    Would you guys be making the same argument if it was President Ronald Reagan? The jurisdictional issues would be the same.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    1. The same applies everywhere to anyone under Secret Service protection.
    2. Only in the place and during the time she is there, IF YOU CHOOSE to be there, also.

    Would you guys be making the same argument if it was President Ronald Reagan? The jurisdictional issues would be the same.
    Their point is clear, your rights, your safety, do not matter to the Feds. Your rights have been suspended. Her rights are more equal than ours.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    1. The same applies everywhere to anyone under Secret Service protection.
    2. Only in the place and during the time she is there, IF YOU CHOOSE to be there, also.

    Would you guys be making the same argument if it was President Ronald Reagan? The jurisdictional issues would be the same.
    Ronny was not a great supporter of the 2nd amendment if you can recall.

    And Yes, the argument would be the same for me.

    And the law did not seem to effect Ronny-he got shot anyways.

    So we have to know the locations of all these jokers at all times?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Governor Reagan boosted my college tuition from insignificant to ~$300 + books/labs. He was not well loved for that, then he visited my campus with massive state security and CHP troops.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    You're right, Charles. Utah has such amazing gun laws that an illegal one day ban doesn't give anybody from other states standing to ridicule it.
    It is a perfectly valid point for discussion and disagreement.

    For example, I do not care to have State law violated/ignored. I recognize the supremacy of federal law, but question whether there is a law at work in this case vs merely a policy or rule. We might also discuss what State (and/or federal) law should be in cases such as this? Is it constitutional/reasonable to allow for gun free secure zones for the protection of certain high profile government officials? Is it politically possible to win a battle against such zones?

    But yes, the gun laws in Utah are, in fact, so good that anyone who presumes to ridicule even a one day gun ban that might (or may not) be illegal, better be very sure he isn't living in a glass house first. As I check my history, about once every 10 years, we get a 1 day ban, in one building, where a high ranking federal official is speaking. Shall we compare that to the 3650 days over that same period that private citizens were banned from bringing guns into all buildings on all college campuses in Wisconsin? Two days, one building when a supreme court justice or VP is speaking, vs 3650 days in all college buildings regardless of who isn't there. And someone presumes to ridicule Utah? Pretty rich when directed at a State so often accused of not treating people like adults. What does that mean about any State that won't let 22 year old college seniors, or even their faculty and staff carry a gun into a college building? How does my State compare in this regard to your State? Or any State where you've politically active?

    If someone wants to ridicule Utah gun laws or how we handle these--for us being part of the nation's "fly over country"--fairly rare speeches from our rulers (I mean federal public servants), the proper direction for the ridicule is that when we passed our State Preemption law and made is so good, we failed to think ahead to the likely security requirements of presidents and SCOTUS justices to provide an exemption. We started from the presumption guns should be permitted everyone and missed an item or even or two on the short list of places where maybe private gun would need to be excluded. Silly us. We clearly should have done what most other States do which is start with the presumption guns are allowed no where and then start adding a short list of "RKBA zones" where they deign to permit guns.

    (Make sure your sarcasm meter is properly tuned before taking offense to any of the above.)

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Surely there's a Utah-only gun forum where you can post this without having your highbrow discussion muddied by us proles.
    Probably not. I find the proles like to seek out opportunity to display themselves. But I can hold my hold in reminding you what the proper boundaries of discussion are.

    All in good fun my friend.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I'm not arguing Reagan's attributes.

    I'm noting that this is jurisdictionally no different.

    To argue against her detail's banning of weapons in that building while she is there, is the same argument that the President's detail can't do the same.

    Also, I am not defending the policy.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •