SC: Open Carry is Legal Act of 2016 (Failed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:30:01 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SC: Open Carry is Legal Act of 2016 (Failed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SC: Open Carry is Legal Act of 2016 (Failed)  (Read 988 times)
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 21, 2016, 02:05:56 AM »
« edited: July 28, 2016, 07:08:04 PM by Siren »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Sponsor: dfwlibertylover

The floor is open for debate.
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2016, 02:58:40 AM »

I'm typically not a supporter of devolution, but in my opinion, this is something where it makes sense for states and municipalities that have a better gauge on the places where they live to decide these things.  A certain way of life in one state or town or city, may not necessarily be compatible with another.
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,502
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2016, 01:56:16 PM »

I'd prefer to keep it as a regional law, but I'd be open to a "Private businesses and institutions may refuse service and/or entry to anyone who is carrying a gun granted they post signs outside indicating this." amendment
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2016, 06:56:30 PM »

I'd prefer to keep it as a regional law, but I'd be open to a "Private businesses and institutions may refuse service and/or entry to anyone who is carrying a gun granted they post signs outside indicating this." amendment

     This makes sense to me. Leave the right to decide on allowing weapons with the establishment owners.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2016, 07:33:56 PM »
« Edited: July 23, 2016, 07:38:17 PM by Santander »

I'd prefer to keep it as a regional law, but I'd be open to a "Private businesses and institutions may refuse service and/or entry to anyone who is carrying a gun granted they post signs outside indicating this." amendment

     This makes sense to me. Leave the right to decide on allowing weapons with the establishment owners.
I personally believe this is an implicit, inalienable property right, but I would support codifying this in the law just for clarification. A sign should not even be necessary to enforce this right.

I also believe that the government's existing authority to prohibit firearms from government property such as schools, courthouses, and airports is well within the government's rights and responsibilities.
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,502
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2016, 05:59:31 PM »

I motion for a vote on this bill with the amendment suggested above added in as well.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2016, 01:54:58 PM »

I'd prefer to keep it as a regional law, but I'd be open to a "Private businesses and institutions may refuse service and/or entry to anyone who is carrying a gun granted they post signs outside indicating this." amendment

     This makes sense to me. Leave the right to decide on allowing weapons with the establishment owners.
I personally believe this is an implicit, inalienable property right, but I would support codifying this in the law just for clarification. A sign should not even be necessary to enforce this right.

I also believe that the government's existing authority to prohibit firearms from government property such as schools, courthouses, and airports is well within the government's rights and responsibilities.

     I also do not believe that it needs to be said, but I think we should say so anyway. As you said, for clarification's sake.
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2016, 03:49:12 PM »

I motion for a vote on this bill with the amendment suggested above added in as well.

Would definitely prefer if someone actually introduced the amendment.
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,502
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2016, 06:29:30 PM »

ok

3. Private businesses and institutions may refuse service and/or entry to anyone who is carrying a gun
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2016, 06:30:30 PM »

I second the amendment.
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2016, 06:02:55 PM »

We will now have a final vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48 hour vote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2016, 06:06:30 PM »

Aye
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,502
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2016, 10:26:25 PM »

AYE
Logged
President of the civil service full of trans activists
Peebs
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,926
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2016, 11:54:48 AM »

Nay
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 13 queries.