Posted on 04/30/2011 7:39:44 AM PDT by marktwain
If it was pass AND enforced, where would the money come from for the equipment? How would this help the people of Arizona?
I do not follow your reasoning. If it were not enforced, and government entities tried to ban armed, law abiding citizens from exercising their Constitutional rights on public property, the government entity could be sued, and I think correctly.
If it were enforced, if the government entity decides to go to the expense of outfitting entrances with metal detectors and armed guards, this will make it less likely that criminals with evil intent will have firearms in the facility.
If the government entity decides that the expense is not worth it, then people will be safer and there will not be the false sense of security that a "no guns" sign seems to engender in some people. Where is the downside for the people of Arizona?
If the law is passed and the government entity decides the expense is not worth it, it would be in violation of the law. If the government entity is sued, the people of Arizona would pay.
If the expense of outfitting entrances of metal detectors and armed guards is carried out, the people of Arizona would pay.
I don’t yet understand your logic.
If I understand correctly, there is already resentment over raising taxes. I see the potential for a lose-lose situation if the law were passed.
OK - I see your point about the sign being inequitable and a violation of second amendment rights.
Personal property rights and eminent domain are two wholly different concepts, one does not remove the other. That is why you get to take the government to court over eminent domain.< p> And at the same time kill the pervert breaking into your property.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.