mnealtx 0 #76 April 12, 2010 Quote Quote no one was injured. And he's now being charged. No different than a reckless driver or a drunk driver. Indeed. Which is why we have laws requiring driving tests before a driver's license is issued, rules of the road, restrictions on alcohol sales, alcohol prohibited rules in many public areas, registration of cars and trucks, mandatory insurance, vehicle inspections, vehicle-free zones etc. Nice of you to point out that there's NO DIFFERENCE between the two activities, one of which is heavily regulated for the public good, and one of which is not but obviously should be. Thanks So, you support being able to get a concealed carry license at 16, with a VERY simple test, no background check required and valid in all 50 states? Ok by me.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #77 April 12, 2010 Quote Having myself lived in college dorms, filled with immature 18-20 year olds living cheek-by-jowl, and seen the incredible personality conflicts and sometimes physical fights - fueled by anger, hatred, dorm politics, sex, jealousy, alcohol, drugs, racial tensions, stud hormones, PMS, etc. - that frequently occur in them, I can't imagine a worse place to allow guns. You and Lucky both post about 20 year olds. You are aware, no, that you have to be 21 to buy and own a handgun? At my school, no one was living in the dorms after the first year. So what? At my school, it was commonplace for upper-classmen, and some grad students, to live in the dorms. Alcohol has routinely been brought into college dorms by 21 year olds, but accessible to and consumed by everyone regardless of age, since time immemorial. If you allow "only" 21 and 22 year old college dorm residents to possess personal guns inside the dorms, that will do little or nothing to address the concern that I've described. In any event, we do seem perfectly willing to let 18 yo's fight for our country. Apparently they have enough maturity then. 18 year old military personnel have gone through military training, are under constant military supervision, are subject to constant military discipline; they are ultimately subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice; and you can bet that their possession and use of deadly weapons are subject to very tight control and scrutiny. Little if any of that applies to 18 year old civilian college students. In any event, my post was as much about specific venue as about personnel: no guns allowed inside college dorms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #78 April 18, 2010 QuoteAriz. House approves concealed weapons bill PHOENIX — The Arizona House voted Thursday to make the state the third in the nation to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, sending the governor a bill that would allow Arizonans to forego background checks and classes that are now required. Update: The governor signed the bill - it is now law! Story: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/16/20100416arizona-concealed-weapons-bill16-ON.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #79 April 18, 2010 QuoteQuoteAriz. House approves concealed weapons bill PHOENIX — The Arizona House voted Thursday to make the state the third in the nation to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, sending the governor a bill that would allow Arizonans to forego background checks and classes that are now required. Update: The governor signed the bill - it is now law! Story: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/16/20100416arizona-concealed-weapons-bill16-ON.html Actually not wholly, it will take effect 90 days from the end of this leg session. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #80 April 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteUpdate: The governor signed the bill - it is now law! Actually not wholly, it will take effect 90 days from the end of this leg session. So by that reasoning, I guess Obama's health care bill isn't law either, because it doesn't cover those 32 million new people until 2019. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #81 April 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteUpdate: The governor signed the bill - it is now law! Actually not wholly, it will take effect 90 days from the end of this leg session. So by that reasoning, I guess Obama's health care bill isn't law either, because it doesn't cover those 32 million new people until 2019. No, it is law, just that it phases in. Now kids can stay on the parent's policy until age 26 and other attributes of the law that are in effect now. The 30M uninsured won't become law until 2014. If it's not on the books and enforceable today, it isn't current law. Same with sunsetting laws. The BK law that took effect on October 17, 2005 was signed 6 months earlier, was it an active law at the signing? Nope, when it became active and enforceable then it became law, until then it was a signed bill that wasn't yet law. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States Arizona on April 16, 2010 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed legislation allowing for unrestricted carry in that state. The law will take effect 90 days after the end of the state's current legislative session, which will put the effective date in July or August 2010.[16] Signed into law- Not in effect yet So we can be semantic and say there is a law signed, but not effectuated, etc, etc... Truth is, CCW w/o a permit is not the current law, if I were to go out with a gun concealed and I don't have a CCW, then I can be charged with carrying w/o a permit. SO atthe end of teh day, is there an open concealed carry law for all non-fellons >21? Hardly. The law is signed and not in effect until late summer, hence no law yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #82 April 19, 2010 Here's a cool chart that rolls by time, showing law changes chronologically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #83 April 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteUpdate: The governor signed the bill - it is now law! Actually not wholly, it will take effect 90 days from the end of this leg session. So by that reasoning, I guess Obama's health care bill isn't law either, because it doesn't cover those 32 million new people until 2019. No, it is law, just that it phases in. You seem to have a double-standard: - A new gun law that begins in 90 days isn't really a law. - But a new health care law that begins in 9 years really is a law. I'll go back to ignoring your messages again, like I did before. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #84 April 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteUpdate: The governor signed the bill - it is now law! Actually not wholly, it will take effect 90 days from the end of this leg session. So by that reasoning, I guess Obama's health care bill isn't law either, because it doesn't cover those 32 million new people until 2019. No, it is law, just that it phases in. You seem to have a double-standard: - A new gun law that begins in 90 days isn't really a law. - But a new health care law that begins in 9 years really is a law. I'll go back to ignoring your messages again, like I did before. - It actually begins in > 90 days - The HC law, all provisions take effect in way < 9 years I'm not super excited about the HC law, as it isn't comprehensive and it doesn't take effect for so long, hence if you call it a law, it's a worthless one for years as nothng takes effect, just like the concealed carry law, it doesn't take effect for 90 days from end of session. Brag of the signing of it, but don't act like it matters today. - Yes, that would be nice if you ignored my posts, that way I don't have to correct you so often and read you wiggling out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #85 April 19, 2010 Quote I'll go back to ignoring your messages again, like I did before. Huh? Messages? Did I miss something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #86 April 19, 2010 Quote Quote I'll go back to ignoring your messages again, like I did before. Huh? Messages? Did I miss something? Yea, you missd John thinking the concealed carry was a law today and not in a little over 90 days. So not really, nothing to see here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #87 April 19, 2010 Quote Quote Quote I'll go back to ignoring your messages again, like I did before. Huh? Messages? Did I miss something? Yea, you missd John thinking the concealed carry was a law today and not in a little over 90 days. So not really, nothing to see here. It is law as of the time the governor signs it - the effective date makes no difference in that respect, Mr. Legal Expert.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #88 April 19, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote I'll go back to ignoring your messages again, like I did before. Huh? Messages? Did I miss something? Yea, you missd John thinking the concealed carry was a law today and not in a little over 90 days. So not really, nothing to see here. It is law as of the time the governor signs it - the effective date makes no difference in that respect, Mr. Legal Expert. But a law that is not in efffect or unenforceable is nill. It's a law that will take effect in the future, I can't conceal carry and tell the cop it's ok, it will be law soon. The BK law is the best example, it ook effect 6 months after signing, so it meant nothing until then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #89 April 19, 2010 While I understand the point you're trying to make, your earlier statement is incorrect. Whether the law is in effect immediately upon signing is immaterial - the law exists from the time that it is signed forward. Here's some review material for you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #90 April 19, 2010 QuoteWhile I understand the point you're trying to make, your earlier statement is incorrect. Whether the law is in effect immediately upon signing is immaterial - the law exists from the time that it is signed forward. Here's some review material for you. Well that explains volumes, all these years I've been attending college and university and you've been watching cartoons; now I get it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #91 April 19, 2010 QuoteWhile I understand the point you're trying to make, your earlier statement is incorrect. Whether the law is in effect immediately upon signing is immaterial - the law exists from the time that it is signed forward. Here's some review material for you. Here's another way to look at it. Obama was elected early Nov 08, he wasn't president until Jan 20 at/after inauguration. He was the presedent elect as he was elected in early Nov 08, not the president. Concealed carry w/o a CCW is NOT the law ofthe land in Nazizona, it will be pending no interference that matters (appellate court, etc) in 4 months or so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #92 April 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteWhile I understand the point you're trying to make, your earlier statement is incorrect. Whether the law is in effect immediately upon signing is immaterial - the law exists from the time that it is signed forward. Here's some review material for you. Well that explains volumes, all these years I've been attending college and university and you've been watching cartoons; now I get it. There's a reason why the term is "signed into law" and not 'signed into effect'. You're trying to argue that enforcement = existence and that is not the case. Maybe you should take a few more classes, you might catch up to the cartoon crowd.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #93 April 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhile I understand the point you're trying to make, your earlier statement is incorrect. Whether the law is in effect immediately upon signing is immaterial - the law exists from the time that it is signed forward. Here's some review material for you. Well that explains volumes, all these years I've been attending college and university and you've been watching cartoons; now I get it. There's a reason why the term is "signed into law" and not 'signed into effect'. You're trying to argue that enforcement = existence and that is not the case. Maybe you should take a few more classes, you might catch up to the cartoon crowd. Ok, conjunction, junction, WTF is your function? Regardless of whether it is signed, it's effect is the paramount consideration. The law is unenforceable and uneffective, call it what you want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #94 April 20, 2010 did you seriously spend a whole page arguing about the "takes effect on" date of a law? Lucky: seriously... it's ok to admit you should have re-worded something. We all know you're fallible. Admit it to yourself. Everyone else: He's not worth that much effort. A full page? Really?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #95 April 20, 2010 Boredom.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
