Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: South Jordan insanity

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post



    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...232051,00.htmlis reporting that South Jordan City Council is considering an ordinance to ban airsoft, BB, and paintball guns.

    According tohttp://www.sjc.utah.gov/pdf/councilpacket.pdfthe ordinancewould make it a class B misdemeanor "to display any air gun, gas operated gun, spring gun or any toy or weapon that is a replica or close in appearance to a firearm in such a manner that a reasonable person would feel threatened by such display." or "to deploy or use any air gun, 'B-B' gun, gas-operated gun, paint ball gun, or spring gun or any instrument, toy or weapon commonly known as a 'peashooter,' 'slingshot,' 'paintball gun' or 'airsoft gun' or any other instrument including but not limited to bows and arrows, made for the purpose of throwing or projecting projectiles of any kind by any means whatsoever, whether such instrument is called by any name set forth above or by any other name."There's an exception if you can get written permission from the Chief of Police (I'll buy dinner for the first person that can actually get permission from the Chief of Police for paintballing).

    Problems with this law:

    - Undue intrusionon personal freedom- Since when was it the government's job to say whether I can or can't shoot a slingshot in my ownbackyard? Thisis agrossintrusion by government which, frankly, offends my sensibilities as a citizen in a supposedly-free country. There's not even a private-property exception for doing these things inside your own house!

    -Far toobroad -If taken literally (and there's really no other way to take it), the prohibition against "any instrument . . . made for the purpose of throwing or projecting projectiles of any kind by any means whatsoever" could be used to ban rubber-band 'guns', marshmallow or gum-drop 'guns', lacrosse sticks,Nerf toys that launch foam balls,children's plastic bows with suction-cup-tippedarrows, or even those sillyKoosh ball launchers that Rosie O'Donnel made famous.

    - Much too severe - A class B misdemeanor? Seriously?!? That could mean up to six months in jail and $1,850 in fines. It creates the crazy situation where i can go to jail for carrying a fake gun around the city but am acting legally if I carry a real gun.

    - Solution in search ofa problem - Apparently there have been 15 incidents in the last 18 months. That hardly warrants a sweeping ban on across the entire city. I'd bet that baseball bats havecaused more harm and property damage over that same 18-month period.

    Please express your sentiments on this shoddily-written and poorly-thought-outordinance to the South Jordan City Council prior to or during the June 17th council meeting.

    And can we please plan an open-carry meeting in South Jordan?



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    SecondAmendmentStudents wrote:

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...232051,00.htmlis reporting that South Jordan City Council is considering an ordinance to ban airsoft, BB, and paintball guns.

    According tohttp://www.sjc.utah.gov/pdf/councilpacket.pdfthe ordinancewould make it a class B misdemeanor "to display any air gun, gas operated gun, spring gun or any toy or weapon that is a replica or close in appearance to a firearm in such a manner that a reasonable person would feel threatened by such display." or "to deploy or use any air gun, 'B-B' gun, gas-operated gun, paint ball gun, or spring gun or any instrument, toy or weapon commonly known as a 'peashooter,' 'slingshot,' 'paintball gun' or 'airsoft gun' or any other instrument including but not limited to bows and arrows, made for the purpose of throwing or projecting projectiles of any kind by any means whatsoever, whether such instrument is called by any name set forth above or by any other name."There's an exception if you can get written permission from the Chief of Police (I'll buy dinner for the first person that can actually get permission from the Chief of Police for paintballing).

    Problems with this law:

    - Undue intrusionon personal freedom- Since when was it the government's job to say whether I can or can't shoot a slingshot in my ownbackyard? Thisis agrossintrusion by government which, frankly, offends my sensibilities as a citizen in a supposedly-free country. There's not even a private-property exception for doing these things inside your own house!

    -Far toobroad -If taken literally (and there's really no other way to take it), the prohibition against "any instrument . . . made for the purpose of throwing or projecting projectiles of any kind by any means whatsoever" could be used to ban rubber-band 'guns', marshmallow or gum-drop 'guns', lacrosse sticks,Nerf toys that launch foam balls,children's plastic bows with suction-cup-tippedarrows, or even those sillyKoosh ball launchers that Rosie O'Donnel made famous.

    - Much too severe - A class B misdemeanor? Seriously?!? That could mean up to six months in jail and $1,850 in fines. It creates the crazy situation where i can go to jail for carrying a fake gun around the city but am acting legally if I carry a real gun.

    - Solution in search ofa problem - Apparently there have been 15 incidents in the last 18 months. That hardly warrants a sweeping ban on across the entire city. I'd bet that baseball bats havecaused more harm and property damage over that same 18-month period.

    Please express your sentiments on this shoddily-written and poorly-thought-outordinance to the South Jordan City Council prior to or during the June 17th council meeting.

    And can we please plan an open-carry meeting in South Jordan?

    UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE
    Home | Site Map | Calendar | Code/Constitution | House | Senate | Search
    76-10-500. Uniform law.
    (1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:
    (a) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in his possession or lawfully under his control; or
    (b) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
    (2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.

    Enacted by Chapter 5, 1999 General Session
    Download Code Section Zipped WordPerfect 76_10_050000.ZIP 2,133 Bytes


    [line]

    Sections in this Chapter|Chapters in this Title|All Titles|Legislative Home Page


    Last revised: Thursday, May 01, 2008







    76-10-501. Definitions.


    (9) (a) "Firearm" means a pistol, revolver, shotgun, sawed-off shotgun, rifle or sawed-off rifle, or any device that could be used as a dangerous weapon from which is expelled a projectile by action of an explosive.


    UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE
    Home | Site Map | Calendar | Code/Constitution | House | Senate | Search
    76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
    Every person, except those persons described in Section 76-10-503, who, not in necessary self defense in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits any dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses the same in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

    Amended by Chapter 101, 1992 General Session
    Download Code Section Zipped WordPerfect 76_10_050600.ZIP 1,720 Bytes


    [line]
    Sections in this Chapter|Chapters in this Title|All Titles|Legislative Home Page

    Last revised: Thursday, May 01, 2008

    Ad far I can see is that they are in VIOLATION of State Code. And Mitch, Clark and AG Mark Shurtleff should be contacted on this matter I believe.



    Just my .40

    TJ

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post


    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...232051,00.html

    Ordinance against fake guns is urged
    By Amy Choate-Nielsen
    Deseret News
    Published: Thursday, June 5, 2008 12:07 a.m. MDT

    1 comment
    E-MAIL|PRINT|FONT+-
    SOUTH JORDAN — When the South Jordan police department gets a call that a man with a gun is hiding in the bushes of the Jordan River Parkway trail, they'd rather not wonder if the gun is real.
    They'd rather not see a toy that looks like a real weapon and shoot the person holding it because they think their lives are in danger.
    These days, with more than 15 complaints about fake weapons — mistaken for being real — being brandished in the city in the past year and a half, it's getting harder to tell. That's why the police department has asked the City Council to amend the city's code and outlaw the use of air guns, replicas of firearms, BB guns and paintball guns except in certain circumstances.
    "We've had multiple problems ... where you encounter these kids doing something that they don't think there's anything wrong with," South Jordan Police Lt. Matt Evans told the council on Tuesday night. "But they have a weapon that looks no different than any other kind of gun and unfortunately, time and time again, they're getting encountered with three and four police officers with guns drawn, pointing at them. If they move in just the wrong direction, they'll end up getting shot and right now, there's nothing we can do about that."
    Air guns are usually distinguished by an orange rim around the muzzle, but in low-light conditions, that marker can be hard to see, according to a city report on the issue. Sometimes people paint over the orange marker to make their "gun" look more realistic.
    The result can be startling, said police Chief Lindsay Shepherd. One officer recently thought his life was in danger when he pulled a man over for a routine traffic stop. The man reached into his glove box to get his registration, and revealed a realistic-looking black gun. Neither man was hurt, but the confusion could have been avoided, Shepherd said.
    The police department also recently responded to a 911 call of a man lying in the bushes with a rifle that turned out to be fake.
    "It caused a pretty tense moment, and it ended up that it was an Airsoft gun," Evans said. "You can imagine the kind of response that would ensue from that call."
    The ordinance, if the council approves it at the next City Council meeting on June 17, would apply to any toy gun that can be used to propel "by compressed air, gas, electricity or spring-loaded plunger, any pellet, dart, hard-tipped arrow, bean, pea, BB, paintball, rock or other hard substance." West Jordan, West Valley City, Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake have similar ordinances.
    Most of the council voiced support of the ordinance at Tuesday's council meeting, but Councilwoman Aleta Taylor says she is worried that the ordinance — which would require residents to notify the police department if they plan to use the items included in the ordinance on their private property — might step over the boundaries of residents' personal rights.
    Taylor says she wants to gather public input before the council makes a decision.
    "South Jordan has already infringed on residents' rights on their own property because of our restrictions for buildings," Taylor said. "There are all kinds of rules in South Jordan. Part of this may be adding to it — it may be the last straw."



    E-mail: achoate@desnews.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Left my .40 in the comments



    TJ

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    (9) (a) "Firearm" means a pistol, revolver, shotgun, sawed-off shotgun, rifle or sawed-off rifle, or any device that could be used as a dangerous weapon from which is expelled a projectile by action of an explosive.
    That's the problem. The realease of a compressed gas is not an explosion. An Explosion is, chemically speaking, a rapidly-occurring redox reaction (combustion) that, just as rapidly, produces a large amount of a gas. It must be a chemical reaction, not just a rapid change in pressure or even a state change (as with CO2-powered BB, airsoft and paintball guns; the gas is stored at supercritical pressures at which it is actually liquid). Because airguns don't use explosives to propel projectiles, they are not firearms and thus pre-emption does not apply to them.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Commented on Des news...

    This is ridiculous, someone call the AG!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    ScottyT wrote:
    Commented on Des news...

    This is ridiculous, someone call the AG!
    I just sent a combinedEmail to Mitch, Clark, the AG Mark Shurtleff and Rep Oda.

    We'll see what the response is.



    TJ

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    I just sent a combinedEmail to Mitch, Clark, the AG Mark Shurtleff and Rep Oda.

    We'll see what the response is.


    TJ
    What did you say? not word for word but sum it up.



    I see the concern the toys create for people and LEO's that dont know the people are playing a game with toy guns. I dont think banning them all together is a good idea, maybe just at parks.Yeah, the class B misdemeanor and fines involved? Thats just too much.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    This would make criminals out of 5 year olds playing cowboys and Indians in their own back yard if passed! That is outrageous...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    478

    Post imported post

    Sad that I gould strap an AK47 to my back and walk into a bank, but the bb gun I use to train my kids is illegal (if this passed)

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    xmirage2kx wrote:
    Sad that I gould strap an AK47 to my back and walk into a bank, but the bb gun I use to train my kids is illegal (if this passed)
    And according to the article it already is in these cities...
    West Jordan, West Valley City, Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake have similar ordinances.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    478

    Post imported post

    Similar, but not as extreme

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Orem, Utah, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    I don't think it will go through, personally. If it does I think the Supreme Court will overturn it just like they did U of U if enough people make a fuss about it.
    Charles A. Hall, self-proclaimed Lone Eagle || Carry: Kahr CW40
    Lone Eagle Observer (http://www.charlesahall.us)
    Facebook Page || http://twitter.com/CharlesAHall

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    47

    Post imported post

    Outsider wrote:
    I don't think it will go through, personally. If it does I think the Supreme Court will overturn it just like they did U of U if enough people make a fuss about it.
    What's this about the Supreme Court and U of U? is there a topic in this forum about it?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    eddified wrote:
    What's this about the Supreme Court and U of U? is there a topic in this forum about it?
    I don't know of a thread that discusses this, but, in a nutshell, the University of Utah claimed to have a policy banning CC on campus. They took the AG to court over it when he said their policy was in violation of state law. It got appealed all the way to the Utah Supreme Court. University of Utah lost and a short while later conceded that CC is legal on campus with a CWP. They're still jerks about OC though.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Outsider wrote:
    I don't think it will go through, personally. If it does I think the Supreme Court will overturn it just like they did U of U
    On what grounds do you think they'll overturn it? Do you see some state or federal law it may be violating, or are you thinking some constitutional issue?

    I think it's crap, but I don't see a way that this ordinance is illegal.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Bob Lonsberry wrote a good column on this today: http://lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?go=4

    I have seached and searched for a reason why this law would be invalid, and I can't find one. There's no state law, as far as I know, preventing it. There's no constitutional right to airsoft toys, at least as far as I know. The best I've come up with is the ever-nebulous "right to privacy", but as terrible as I think this law is, I'm not in a position to fight it all the way to the SCOTUS with all my hopes hanging by a thread that I don't think should exist anyways.



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    SecondAmendmentStudents wrote:
    Bob Lonsberry wrote a good column on this today: http://lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?go=4

    I have seached and searched for a reason why this law would be invalid, and I can't find one. There's no state law, as far as I know, preventing it. There's no constitutional right to airsoft toys, at least as far as I know. The best I've come up with is the ever-nebulous "right to privacy", but as terrible as I think this law is, I'm not in a position to fight it all the way to the SCOTUS with all my hopes hanging by a thread that I don't think should exist anyways.

    FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS




    The map says South Jordan is in Utah.
    Common sense says it's not in America.
    Not with laws like this.
    In South Jordan, they want to outlaw everything. Or at least it seems to be that way. Technically, all they want to outlaw is anything that shoots anything.
    BB guns, bows and arrows, suction-cup dart guns. We'll go through the list in a moment.
    The problem is the police. Apparently, the South Jordan Police Department is easily confused by toy guns.
    And bows and arrows.
    The police chief claims that officers responding to calls see kids with toy guns and don't know whether or not to shoot them.
    I guess the federally mandated orange blob on the end of the barrel isn't enough. And I guess those nasty Daisy Red Ryder BB guns are just too confusing.
    At any rate, the South Jordan police report that it's a lucky thing they haven't inadvertently plugged any 10-year-olds playing cops and robbers. And, if the city wants to limit accidental SWAT deployments on paintball kids, they better pass a new law quick.
    Let's stop for a moment.
    Before we go into the inane details, this is a bad idea already. Why? Because in America, cops don't get to write the laws. Or even suggest them. That's not their job. The police are to enforce the laws. We've got this little thing called the separation of powers and it says that every part of government has to keep its nose in its own business. Police – executive branch – are not to be a part of the proposing or passing of laws – legislative branch.
    OK, now, back to the asylum.
    Get a look at what they want to outlaw in South Jordan.
    Under the new ordinance, it would be a misdemeanor “to deploy or use any air gun, 'B-B' gun, gas-operated gun, paint ball gun, or spring gun or any instrument, toy or weapon commonly known as a 'peashooter,' 'slingshot,' 'paintball gun' or 'airsoft gun' or any other instrument including but not limited to bows and arrows, made for the purpose of throwing or projecting projectiles of any kind by any means whatsoever, whether such instrument is called by any name set forth above or by any other name."
    Astoundingly, they overlooked spitballs.
    And, in case the Trojans attack, catapults.
    Peashooters? Slingshots? Bows and arrows?
    Man, these are some jumpy cops. Is there a lot of crime in South Jordan involving archery? Will the world really be safer if we forbid some guy from shooting arrows into a foam deer in his back yard?
    And what's so wrong with BB guns? How many millions of those are owned and shot by little kids all across this country? How is it that they are such a threat to civilization in South Jordan?
    Honestly, any cop who's afraid of a paintball gun should turn in his badge and become a social worker.
    Or an interior decorator.
    Or a flower arranger.
    For crying out loud, Dennis the Menace and Huckleberry Finn carried slingshots. Is there honestly any sane person, other than Barack Obama, who sees a danger in slingshots?
    And getting back to the premise of this law – that South Jordan cops get confused and fear they are going to inadvertently shoot somebody – any cop who gets confused by a slingshot cheated on the eye exam.
    Maybe somebody could come up with flashcards with various “shoot, don't shoot” scenarios. Gang banger with an AK-47 would be a “shoot.” Boy Scout with a bow and arrow, or an 8-year-old with a slingshot, would be a “don't shoot.”
    I know it's complex, officer, but if you concentrate really, really hard, I think you can tell them apart.
    Here's another quote from the ordinance.
    The new law would charge with a misdemeanor anyone who had a toy which shot “by compressed air, gas, electricity or spring-loaded plunger, any pellet, dart, hard-tipped arrow, bean, pea, BB, paintball, rock or other hard substance.”
    Let's put on our lawyer hats and think this through.
    They want to make it against the law to own a “spring-loaded plunger” that fires a “dart.”
    Like the ones with the suction cups on them that they sell at the Dollar Store? Those are indeed spring-loaded plungers, and the things with the suction cups are in fact darts.
    And this law is in fact absolutely nuts.
    Though I'm surprised that in the enumeration of peas and beans they somehow forgot acorns, kernels of corn, cranberries and Skittles.
    The courts will have to decide if passing a kidney stone is prohibited under this ordinance.
    But hold it, they're not tyrants in South Jordan. No, not at all. If you want to have these items on your private property, all you have to do is get the prior written permission of the chief of police.
    Right.
    Dear Chief, I'd like to shoot BB guns into a cardboard box in my basement on Christmas morning after Santa brings my kids a Red Ryder. May I, pretty please, with sugar on top? Signed, An American with no rights.
    This is ridiculous.
    Not a one of these items should be regulated, much less outlawed. Whether or not you have a single one of these items – be it an Airsoft gun or a paintball gun or a slingshot or a bow and arrow or a BB bun or a peashooter or anything else – it is absolutely none of the business of the police or the city council. How cowardly or tyrannical must they be to dare seek to criminalize these completely innocuous items.
    If South Jordan cops are afraid of kids playing with these toys, they don't need an ordinance, they need a testosterone patch.
    This is an insane, un-American and embarrassing law, and it should be shot down.
    Until then, they can have my peashooter and my slingshot when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

    - by Bob Lonsberry © 2008



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_9580477

    South Jordan is considering an ordinance to ban the use of airsoft, BB, dart and paintball guns, plus peashooters, slingshots and bows and arrows ("South Jordan considers ban on fake guns," Tribune, June 6). The police say they have received 15 complaints in the last 18 months involving the toys. As heavy a strain as it is for the police to respond to all those calls (one a month!), there are better ways to alleviate the supposed problem.
    We already have laws against vandalism and threatening others. If our police have difficulty distinguishing between paintball guns and real ones, more rigorous training is in order. Some public education and community outreach might help ensure that everyone stays safe.
    It's not necessary to first jump right to the most intrusive and restrictive remedy and punish all for the actions of a few bad apples. If you dislike nanny-state government measures such as this, let the City Council know before or during its next meeting on June 17.
    If seeing neighborhood kids playing with their slingshots and peashooters is really so distressing, close your blinds or move somewhere that doesn't cherish individual freedom.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Taylorsville, Utah, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    My sister & family live in South Jordan and were up visiting today when this topic came up. Since some special discussion on the subject was scheduled for their June 17th council meeting, has anyone heard any new info or if any decision was made?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    I spoke with the Chief of SJPD yesterday about this. There will be a couple of public "education and information meeting" from 6:30to 7:30:

    7/8/2008 @ South Jordan Community Center (10778 S. Redwood Rd)

    7/22/2008@ Gale Center of History and Culture (10300 S. Beckstead Lane)

    In my opinion, thishasa feel of "come let the ruling class tell you poor dumb shmucks why you should go along with what we say," but I suppose I should be glad that they didn't just vote it throughduring the first City Council meeting and that we'll be given a chance to attend the "education and information meeting."

    It also irritates me that the first time we'll be able to see the proposed ordinance will be at that meeting. It doesn't give one much time to compose well-reasoned arguments or thoroughly analyze the proposal. But then againsince it's not a "public comment" period (see preceding paragraph), maybe they don't much care about our well-reasoned arguments and thorough analysis.

    While on the phone with the chief I asked him, "Do you know of any law that would be violated by Open Carry of a firearm?" I was trying to explore if he intended to pursue the 'disturbing the peace' route, and wanted to let him know that there might be lawfully-armed citizens carrying their weapons openly around South Jordan (in the hopes that they won't over-react). After a significant pause, he said, "No" and I left it at that.

    I spoke with a City Council member earlier and got the impression that paintball guns will be exempt from this new draft of the ordinance. I imagine it will focus mostly on AirSoft, and maybe BB or pellet guns. 'Course I won't know until Tuesday.

    Anyways, like I've said before, I think this reinforces the societal prejudice against armed citizens and I plan to oppose it and would be happy to have any and all support that anyone can offer.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    uTAH-life member: NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, ,
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    Paintball guns exempt, you say? Sounds like some council members have friends/relatives/children involved in said activity.



    If they want to be asses about it, someone ought to educate them on what a frozen paintball out of a high end gun can do. BB guns are dangerous, but paintball isn't? Nice double standard.



    Just so you know, I do fall squarely on the side of the whole thing being ridiculous.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    I got a look at the law during the first meeting. It turns out that my council member was wrong (or deceptive). Paintball guns are still banned under the new law. As has been said, it's been modified so that there's a private property exception now, but they seem intent on passing something along these lines.

Posting Permissions

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