DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
Sounds great to me.
Then again, I consider "because I want to" a good & sufficient reason.
-
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.
-
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.
Illegal to carry in church? Says who?
- Thread starter redreed
- Start date
Then again, I consider "because I want to" a good & sufficient reason.
bom1911
Regular Member
I think he called you Gun Boy. I like Gun Guy better.
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
I have "good and sufficient reason" every day I leave the house with my Kimber on my hip and LCR-357 somewhere else on my person. I have Good and Sufficient Reason to carry my Friends everywhere it is legal to do so and that includes a House of Worship while services are being conducted. If questioned by an LEO about why I may be carrying there, I plan to say "Just do an Internet search for Church Shootings and you can find many pages of "Good and Sufficient Reason" to carry a firearm for self-defense. I've actually duscussed this exact law with LEOs in my area (York County) and those I've spoken to are in complete agreement with my assessment.
I'm sorry you're from some awful place where you feel it necessary to wipe your backside after using the bathroom facilities. Welcome to Virginia were Common Sense seems to be much more common than other places.
Welcome to OCDO!
I'm sorry you're from some awful place where you feel it necessary to wipe your backside after using the bathroom facilities. Welcome to Virginia were Common Sense seems to be much more common than other places.
Welcome to OCDO!
buster81
Regular Member
deleted
Last edited:
user
Accomplished Advocate
Originally (i.e., in 1789), each state was considered a sovereign entity which could do pretty much what ever it wished within its own territorial boundaries (as opposed to the U.S., which was not designed to be a territorially-defined government), and subject to its own constitution. Hence, a state could (and some did) have an established church and require the citizens to be members (or, as in Virginia, to pay taxes for the support thereof).
During the Twentieth Century, the United States invented the concept of "selective incorporation". What that did was to apply certain provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states in the same way as they apply to the U.S. by way of the Fourteenth Amendment (which does apply to the states). They used the "due process clause" on the one hand to say that there is no particular "process" which is "due" when it comes to how states can treat citizens, and on the other hand to say that "substance" is a matter of "process". What was really going on when that happened was that the U.S. was weaseling out of the Bill of Rights by applying state law liberality to application of the Constitution to the U.S. E.g., saying that the right to free speech requires that the states don't punish newspaper reporters for their libel unless they be motivated by "actual malice". That's weaseling, because the Bill of Rights contains absolute statements. As to the U.S. as against any citizen, no regulatory authority (under the Constitution) can limit what anyone can say - there just can't be any federal law of defamation. The application of the principle was limited to those case opinions in which the U.S.Sup.Ct. has specifically identified the right to be affected.
Recently, in the Heller case, Mr. Justice Scalia announced the end of any of the final vestiges of the Bill of Rights. "Selective incorporation" no longer applies. Now, all of the Bill of Rights applies to the states, subject to "reasonable regulation". The implication is that the U.S. is subject to the Bill of Rights in exactly the same way as the states are - that is to say, you have no "rights" in any absolute sense; your "rights" are subject to "reasonable regulation". What's "reasonable", you ask? Whatever the United States says it is, of course.
In elementary school, I was taught, "You can trust the policeman; the policeman is your friend!". Substitute "The United States" for "the policeman" in that sentence with the same meaning and effect.
We are entering a period of complex secret international conspiracies and politics by assassination, I'm afraid. As a history major, I'd say that I've seen the pattern several times before, and humans haven't really changed in the last eight thousand years of recorded history (other than having learned to move bigger and heavier things farther and faster). This is the last chance the people have to take back their government. If you want to have rights in any meaningful sense, you've got to act to preserve them, now. If you wait, all bets are off.
During the Twentieth Century, the United States invented the concept of "selective incorporation". What that did was to apply certain provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states in the same way as they apply to the U.S. by way of the Fourteenth Amendment (which does apply to the states). They used the "due process clause" on the one hand to say that there is no particular "process" which is "due" when it comes to how states can treat citizens, and on the other hand to say that "substance" is a matter of "process". What was really going on when that happened was that the U.S. was weaseling out of the Bill of Rights by applying state law liberality to application of the Constitution to the U.S. E.g., saying that the right to free speech requires that the states don't punish newspaper reporters for their libel unless they be motivated by "actual malice". That's weaseling, because the Bill of Rights contains absolute statements. As to the U.S. as against any citizen, no regulatory authority (under the Constitution) can limit what anyone can say - there just can't be any federal law of defamation. The application of the principle was limited to those case opinions in which the U.S.Sup.Ct. has specifically identified the right to be affected.
Recently, in the Heller case, Mr. Justice Scalia announced the end of any of the final vestiges of the Bill of Rights. "Selective incorporation" no longer applies. Now, all of the Bill of Rights applies to the states, subject to "reasonable regulation". The implication is that the U.S. is subject to the Bill of Rights in exactly the same way as the states are - that is to say, you have no "rights" in any absolute sense; your "rights" are subject to "reasonable regulation". What's "reasonable", you ask? Whatever the United States says it is, of course.
In elementary school, I was taught, "You can trust the policeman; the policeman is your friend!". Substitute "The United States" for "the policeman" in that sentence with the same meaning and effect.
We are entering a period of complex secret international conspiracies and politics by assassination, I'm afraid. As a history major, I'd say that I've seen the pattern several times before, and humans haven't really changed in the last eight thousand years of recorded history (other than having learned to move bigger and heavier things farther and faster). This is the last chance the people have to take back their government. If you want to have rights in any meaningful sense, you've got to act to preserve them, now. If you wait, all bets are off.
Last edited:
That opens the box that is now ours, but once rested upon Pandora's dressing table.
bom1911
Regular Member
papa bear
Regular Member
why would that have been racist?
bom1911
Regular Member
I don't know.
It's a long story!
nuc65
Activist Member
The saddest part is the fact that the states refused to ratify the constitution unless a Bill of Rights would be attached later. The Bill of Rights was needed to avoid the government determining what God given rights were and to avoid the egregious violations that we are starting to see today.
As has been noted, it's a long story. You sort of had to have been there to know what it's about. If you have nothing better to do on June 21st, you are invited to come and watch the next exciting chapter of the ongoing saga.
(Yes, I'm being cryptic. Check your PMs to read a better explanation.)
stay safe.
....click it
Is dis one betta?
http://www.bigboyguntoys.com/10812.html
or maybe this -
http://www.trainweb.org/jlsrr/bigboy/bigboy%20mainpage.htm
and of course this -
http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-big-boy.cfm
It ain't funny either. I near spit coffee all over my laptop:shocker:
USNA69
Regular Member
This law creates a very strange possibility:
Let us assume that a church is very gun-friendly and welcomes, even encourages, attendees to OC or CC. As the law is written, anyone possesing any of the listed weapons and attending this church during a service could be charged with a Class 4 misdemeanor by any LEO observing it, regardless of the church's feelings about the matter.
In an extreme scenario, the church might even incorporate some or all of the listed weapons into its religious services. That would create a possible, but admittedly unlikely, situation in which LEOs could enter the church, disrupt the service, and detain or arrest a participant in the service. A determination of "good and sufficient reason" would be made later in court.
Even more bizarre, consider the possibility that the pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi, imam, etc. is carrying. Under the law, LEOs could interrupt the service and "frog march" the cleric out of the church in custody. Again, a determination of "good and sufficient reason" would be made later in court.
This law would seem to violate the "free exercise" provision, given that the Commonwealth has deemed that the same conduct which is "illegal" inside of the church happens to be completely legal outside of the church.
This is a law which desperately needs to be repealed, and we should address it beginning now and on to next Lobby Day.
Last edited:
Would seem to be valid points. Ones that I had not previously considered in that light.