Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"No Weapons Allowed Inside This Building"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by The Real Hawkeye, Aug 25, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    Had to hand deliver a copy of my house deed today to a County Government building. Had to park a long way away and walk to the door. First thing I see at the door is a huge sign that says "No Weapons Allowed Inside This Building." Had to walk all the way back to the car and, as inconspicuously as I was able (people walking to and fro), put my .45 in the glove compartment, then walk all the way back again. No guards or metal detectors inside. Now, will someone explain to me the good this policy does to anyone. I cannot think of a single scenario wherein this policy and sign could possibly prevent something bad from happening, but I can think of plenty of situations where it could get a lot of people needlessly killed. Can anybody help me out on this one, please. I'd really like to know why.
     
  2. FRIENDLY

    FRIENDLY Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    152
    Location:
    Australia
    No Guns

    Do not expect common sense from a beaurocrat mentality. They have a regulation and they think that solves everything.I mean who would disobey that commandment?
     
  3. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,376
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    That is pretty standard across the country. I know it makes little sense, but we just have to grin and bare it, and be thankful that so many states are now issuing carry permits. The Constitution does not specifically outline CCW, so we really can't gripe too much.
     
  4. fisherman66

    fisherman66 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    379
    A Fort Worth court house got shot up 2 weeks ago. Nobody was hurt. Not that that couldn't happen anywhere.
     
  5. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    It helps the politicians feel secure in the knowledge that they hold power over us mere mortals. In their eyes, This Is Good.
    Oh yeah? Watch me.

    The Constitution is not a list of our rights. It's a list of the government's powers. Bottom line is, if it ain't in Article I, Section 8, the government can't do it. State governments have additional power, but it seems to me that carry, concealed or otherwise, is "bearing" arms, and therefore ought to be sacrosant. 'Course, seein' as how most politicos these days wouldn't recognize the Constitution if you whacked 'em in the head with a rolled-up copy of it, I don't guess we get to be too surprised.
     
  6. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    Is that an argument for or against CCW in court houses? I seriously don't know which argument you are making with that fact.
     
  7. fisherman66

    fisherman66 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    379
    No arguement. Simple fact. I'm electing to not take a side.

    In a Terrel court house a ccw holder shot and killed a distraut man who killed his son and was trying to kill his wife over a divorce, last year.

    There, we are even steven.
     
  8. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    I think I can understand the rationale for metal detectors and armed officers in court houses, combined with a no CCW policy, because you have helpless suspects in handcuffs, presumed innocent, and the potential for a hotheaded brother or father of a victim coming in to guarantee his idea of justice. But for your typical government building, say like the one I went to, I don't see the point of this policy. Who does it protect? Who is it designed to protect? How?
     
  9. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    It's government's reminder that you're its servant.
     
  10. fisherman66

    fisherman66 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    379
    I can agree with those sentiments.
     
  11. ksnecktieman

    ksnecktieman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Location:
    Junction City, Kansas
    Hawkeye? If your sister, or mother, or daughter was raped?????????

    You have to live with yourself,,, and I have to live with myself,,, you do as you choose,,,, and please hesitate a half a second while I do what I have to do.
     
  12. MikeB

    MikeB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    383
    Location:
    Northeast PA
    I never see those signs in my neck of the woods. Of course in PA there was a surprising outbreak of common sense when the LTCF laws were liberalized. Signs mean nothing legally, and there are almost no restrictions on where we can carry.

    Your statement is a bit confusing or inaccurate. The BOR in the COTUS is a list of restrictions on government power and thus a list of our "supposed" rights from government interference. The BoR is not however the end all be all under the CoTUS as it is often claimed. The 9th Amendment is somehow overlooked all the time.

    We do or are supposed to have rights besides those enumerated in the constitution. It was an argument by some of our founders that enumerating the rights would cause government to accept only those rights that were specifically listed. It's too bad that this knowledge has been largely lost or ignored by our "leaders".
     
  13. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    No, it isn't. Go read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. That's the part that starts:
    So, I repeat: the Constitution defines the structure of the government and what powers it will have. If it's not in the list of things that "The Congress shall have Power To" do, then Congress doesn't (legitimately) have the power to do it.

    The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of some specific rights we have which "shall not be infringed," but as you yourself admit, "we do or are supposed to have rights besides those enumerated in the constitution." We're talking about two different things, really: the BoR is about our rights, and the Constitution (in its original form) is what defines what the government is allowed to do.
     
  14. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    Mike, the reason the Federalists were opposed to a bill of rights in the first place was that such a thing presumes a federal government of generally unlimited powers, "except for X,Y and Z rights reserved to the people." A bill of rights, they argued, was not necessary for a government of limited and delegated powers. Since a right, in the sense that Americans mean the word, is merely a restriction on what the government can do, it is not necessary, and it doesn't make sense, to state that the government has no right to do X,Y or Z when it has not been delegated any power in those areas to start with. That's what Flyboy means when he says, "The Constitution is not a list of our rights. It's a list of the government's powers." It is all explained very well by Hamilton in Federalist No. 84. Look for the paragraph that starts, "I go further, and affirm that the Bill of Rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous."
     
  15. MikeB

    MikeB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    383
    Location:
    Northeast PA
    Uh isn't that what I said.

     
  16. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    Yep. Sorry, it was late at night.
     
  17. scubie02

    scubie02 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    916
    Location:
    ny
    because most bureaucrats take several courses in "unhelpful" with a minor in "superior attitude", and they know with the frustration levels generated, who knows what might happen if we had weapons... :neener:
     
  18. Father Knows Best

    Father Knows Best Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,503
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    1. In most states that allow concealed carry, there are certain places that the law does not allow you to carry even if they are not posted. Typically, those places include schools, courthouses and other government buildings (at least certain types of government buildings, or buildings where government functions are in progress).

    2. The best solution to the problem is to have a secure location in your vehicle for your firearm. Those handgun vaults with fingerprint or touchpad locks work well. They can be bolted to the floor of your vehicle, and a towel or newspaper tossed over them to conceal them from prying eyes while you are away from the car.

    3. On the legal/constitutional issues being debated here, keep in mind that the Constitution is for the most part a document that defines the powers of the Federal Government, and certain limits on those powers. It was always presumed, and is understood, that the States have what is known as "the general police power." The "police power" means the power to make laws for the health, safety and welfare of the general public. In simple terms, that means that the States can do whatever they want, subject to a few restrictions: (1) the States cannot exercise any powers that have been delegated exclusively to the Federal government as set forth in the Constitution, e.g., the powers to regulate interstate commerce and enter into foreign treaties; (2) if both the Federal government and the States have the power to act in a certain area, and do, the Federal law is supreme and will supercede (or "preempt") any State law that conflicts with it; and (3) the States must observe any other limitations on their own power that are set forth in their Constitutions and the U.S. Constitution.

    Thus, while the Federal government is generally one of limited powers, i.e., those powers specifically delegated to it by the States in the Constitution, the States are not. The Federal government can act only in areas where it has specifically been given the authority to act. Thus, any Federal law begins with a recitation of the basis for Federal authority in the area covered by law, and is always subject to being challenged as invalid because it is beyond the scope of the powers granted to the Federal government.

    By contrast, the States are always presumed to have the power to enact any given law. To challenge a State law, you must show that is violates some specific provision of either the Federal or State Constitutions.
     
  19. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    Father Knows Best, it just so happens that I agree with virtually every word you've just said (I guess, based on your essay, you agree with me that there is no such thing as Fourteenth Amendment Incorporation, i.e., that is was a fiction from the start), but my question had to do with the reasoning behind the policy. That seems to be lacking, in my opinion. Can you, perhaps, provide me with a hypothetical situation in which this policy, in the case I mentioned, might actually prevent criminal violence?
     
  20. Andrew Rothman

    Andrew Rothman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,669
    Location:
    MN
  21. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    Matt, according to that, you are correct. The sign had no force in law. Florida does not permit public establishments, not even government buildings (except those specified in the law) to prohibit concealed carry by license holders. I could have legally ignored it. Good to know.
     
  22. Frandy

    Frandy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,354
    Location:
    NC
    Hmmmmm...I looked at the Florida law as posted on Packing and didn't see that all-encompassing statement that is in NC law...if posted that you can't have a gun there, then you can't have a gun there... :banghead:

    Hmmmmmm...
     
  23. mokster

    mokster Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    133
    Location:
    las vegas
    Florida seems to have all the great ccw friendly laws. If you can legally carry you should be allowed to anywhere. Its not only an annoyance but leaves your carry weapon vulnerable when you have to shed it and leave it in your car, Im coming from the place that ranks #4 in car thefts.
     
  24. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Clearly "No Weapons" signs are magical ... it took over your mind and caused you to walk all the way back to the car didn't it?

    Had you tried to walk through the door you would have been stopped dead in your tracks by an instantly appearing wall of positively charged kumbaya molecules and a couple of magic pixies would have made your gun and all your negative thoughts vanish into thin air :neener:
     
  25. Father Knows Best

    Father Knows Best Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,503
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Nope! It's a stupid policy.

    With the caveat that gun bans CAN be effective, IF they are accompanied by inspection and enforcement. In other words, if you combine a ban on guns with metal detectors, x-ray machines and effective security, then they MAY be effective at reducing violent crime at the location. But simply putting up a sign, or passing a law, is completely ineffective because, as we all know, those willing to do violence generally aren't all that worried about whether they are "allowed" to have a gun.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page