Tyranny of the ATF

[Methais]

Your hyperbole continues to be stupid and pointless. Both situations with the firearm carry are as a result of government restrictions, but you blatantly ignore it for the sake of a faulty argument.

Add "private entities vs. government entities" to the list of 994247238043242304782304 things Seran can't wrap his retard brain around.

[Suppressed Poet]

Your hyperbole continues to be stupid and pointless. Both situations with the firearm carry are as a result of government restrictions, but you blatantly ignore it for the sake of a faulty argument.

You are absolutely wrong, as usual. One situation is the government restricting. The other situation is a place of worship restricting (if they so choose).

[Seran]

You are absolutely wrong, as usual. One situation is the government restricting. The other situation is a place of worship restricting (if they so choose).

You're glossing over that the only reason the place of worship, eatery, etc, has the right the ban weapons is by state government statute. Yes, the business or location is the decider, but to ignore that it's government entity that grants the privilege is just silly.

[Suppressed Poet]

I thought that the point we we're going for was that a sign on the wall doesn't effect what a bad person will do. So the fact that were people there to stop him also armed is was a good thing.

Absolutely. Violent criminals don’t follow gun laws.

On that subject, the Sheriff of Fresno made a public statement condemning these recent gun laws. A lot of pro-2A folks are criticizing him for not going all the way to say they won’t enforce it since it’s unconstitutional. I’m more understanding. He is in a tough spot and I applaud him for speaking out against the laws. Until a court actually strikes them down as unconstitutional, it is the State law now in California. The Sheriff is trying his best to do his job and what’s right, and there are negative consequences to telling the public they won’t enforce the new laws.

What’s missing to me is that we need some sort of negative consequence for politicians who knowingly & openly pass into law that defy the Constitution & Supreme Court decisions. The State will spend a lot of money defending their actions, but nothing bad actually happens to the politicians. In fact, the politicians have incentives to be openly defiant like this for the national clout. That’s a problem.

[Parkbandit]

You're glossing over that the only reason the place of worship, eatery, etc, has the right the ban weapons is by state government statute. Yes, the business or location is the decider, but to ignore that it's government entity that grants the privilege is just silly.

Do you have that Texas state statute handy that you could post it?

Thanks.

[Methais]

Do you have that Texas state statute handy that you could post it?

Thanks.

In before "gOoGlE iT"

[Seran]

Do you have that Texas state statute handy that you could post it?

Thanks.

Here's the resource, do your own research.

https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-law...gious-property

[Parkbandit]

Here's the resource, do your own research.

https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-law...gious-property

No, I was looking for the specific Texas state statute that spells out that "the only reason the place of worship, eatery, etc, has the right the ban weapons is by state government statute."

[Methais]

No, I was looking for the specific Texas state statute that spells out that "the only reason the place of worship, eatery, etc, has the right the ban weapons is by state government statute."

According to Seran logic, did you know that the only reason people are able to not shit their pants is because there's no government law saying that everyone has to shit their pants?



Seran shits his pants anyway, but for completely different reasons, the primary one being that he's a drooling retard and can't help it.

[Suppressed Poet]

No, I was looking for the specific Texas state statute that spells out that "the only reason the place of worship, eatery, etc, has the right the ban weapons is by state government statute."

Of course he can’t because it doesn’t exist. From the site he did post:

SB 535 Bill Analysis
SB 535 is a Texas law that became effective 9/1/2019. It was published with a bill analysis that includes an author/sponsor statement of intent. This statement says that the intent of SB 535 (2019) was to codify Attorney General Opinion No. KP-0176 and to "make it clear that places of worship are to be treated the same as other private property when determining whether a license holder may carry on premises."

The real world summary, prior to 2019 places of worship were excluded from places you could legally carry. I believe this was before Texas adopted constitutional carry without a LTC by the way. Anyways, some evil bastard went into a church to kill a bunch of people. A bunch of parishioners pulled out their guns and ended the threat. Technically those good people that were carrying a firearm inside the church were breaking the law, but they saved a bunch of people by doing so. Texas got smart and changed the law to make places of worship the same as any other normal establishment. If a church wants to prohibit people from carrying a firearm on their property they must post proper specific signage, otherwise it’s legal to do so.

And for some unexplainable retard reason, Seran is arguing that since a business or church decide to post signage making it illegal to carry on their property that’s the same thing as the government mandating that the carry of a firearm in all of those places is prohibited.