Ok, anyone shocked with Seattle's win yesterday?

Anyone out there shocked with Seattle's win yesterday? I heard that odds on the "Hawks" making it to the end and winning were around 250 to one. Now that's a longshot.

Back on topic, how many feel that after the Seattle case is resolved and McDonald becomes more firmly entrenched in our laws and regulations, we will see prohibitions against carry in public stadiums go away? Will we eventually see a prohibition against "leaseholders" denying "Fundamental Rights" that are guaranteed by the Constitution? Will "McDonald" and subsequent rulings that are bound to come down in the future eventually make Citizens who lawfully carry firearms a protected class just like it has for racial, religious, and age groups?

amlevin said:

Anyone out there shocked with Seattle's win yesterday? I heard that odds on the "Hawks" making it to the end and winning were around 250 to one. Now that's a longshot.

Back on topic, how many feel that after the Seattle case is resolved and McDonald becomes more firmly entrenched in our laws and regulations, we will see prohibitions against carry in public stadiums go away? Will we eventually see a prohibition against "leaseholders" denying "Fundamental Rights" that are guaranteed by the Constitution? Will "McDonald" and subsequent rulings that are bound to come down in the future eventually make Citizens who lawfully carry firearms a protected class just like it has for racial, religious, and age groups?

Click to expand...

one of my buddies made a bet with a die hard saints fan and won 8000 bucks.lol

Will "McDonald" and subsequent rulings that are bound to come down in the future eventually make Citizens who lawfully carry firearms a protected class just like it has for racial, religious, and age groups?

Click to expand...

I certainly hope not. What a blow to private property rights that would be, not to mention a fundamental change to the Constitution. We already have a mechanism to change the Constitution; it's call the amendment process.

deanf said:

I certainly hope not. What a blow to private property rights that would be, not to mention a fundamental change to the Constitution. We already have a mechanism to change the Constitution; it's call the amendment process.

Click to expand...

In this case that "property" was constructed with taxpayer money and is used for "public events". A little different case than where someone uses private money to construct a private facility.

Maybe we should sell the Stadium to the Seahawks. The City could use the money.

a) Not shocked, just pleasantly surprised. They have shown the ability to play well in flashes all season. Their problem has been doing it consistently for a whole game. They showed this again yesterday when they started to let it slip away and only a brilliant run for a touchdown saved them. They've already beaten the Bears once this season so if the Pack can beat Philly, there is a chance that the Hawks will be back in the NFC title game. At which point they will go home.

2) I would like to see a rollback of impositions on private property, rather than an extension of the current intrusion into our business. I don't approve of discriminating against someone for race but the free market can deal with the issue. Likewise with firearms, smoking, any other restriction that the government chooses to burden businesses with. Bottom line, it is your property, your business, and you should succeed or fail based on your choices.

heresolong said:

Bottom line, it is your property, your business, and you should succeed or fail based on your choices.

Click to expand...

Are you overlooking that I wasn't asking about private businesses but A Public Arena (Stadium) that was built and is maintained with public money for public events. It would appear that in this case, the public has a right to have their rights respected. By letting the "lessee" hide behind the so called "private property" argument seems a little strange in this case.

On a separate note, I think it is long past time to let the Sports Franchises build their own facilities rather than extorting them from the public. If they were to do so, I would support totally the "our property, our rules, argument".

amlevin said:

Are you overlooking that I wasn't asking about private businesses

Click to expand...

Nope, I didn't. You extended your quest for knowledge to gun owners becoming a protected class and to leaseholders in general. That implies private business as well as government.

I totally agree with you that government at any level should have to have all sorts of good reasons to restrict any of our rights.