Posted on 07/28/2012 3:52:19 AM PDT by marktwain
HANOVER, Pa. (WHTM) -
Pennsylvania law allows adults who can legally own a firearm to openly carry in most public places, but not everyone may agree with a man who chose to wear his pistol to a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises."
The manager of Hanover's R/C Theatre, Kim Underwood, says she called police Monday evening after she was notified that a movie-goer had a handgun tucked into his belt.
She said she thought it was best to notify authorities given the killings of 12 people in Aurora, Colorado during the movie's midnight opening last week.
"They handled it accordingly after the movie was over. He was very cool about it," Underwood said of the 27-year-old gun owner.
There wasn't much to handle. Pennsylvania law allows open carry in businesses, although not everyone agrees it's a good idea.
"I support people's rights to carry guns and what have you, but a movie theater is another story," movie-goer Santo Musotto said.
The gun owner, who we will not identify, told abc27 News that exercising his Second Amendment right is simply part of his routine.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc27.com ...
Which only points out the fact that you have no idea what "status quo" means. Because you just got done saying... (Dead Corpse)
for what we have is, and what you wish for "isn't." (imardmd1)
Ugh... what a dumbass. I can hardly wait until you kids go back to school. (Dead Corpse)
Ah, let's see, back in 1950-52 when I took two years of Latin, what "status quo" meant was "the existing state of affairs"; or, to wit, in my quaint colloquialism, "what is, is."
If, now, "status quo" has been redefined from what I learned, and you have some insight on what that new definition is, perhaps you would share it with me to show what a dumbass I am? Please do.
for I have said nothing about upholding a status quo...
But, that is exactly what you are doing. Even your "what we have is" statement bolsters this fact.
The current legal fiction is a "living document" abomination of twisted juris prudence and outright lies. And yet you uphold this view and denigrate those wanting a return to the Constitution and it's founding principles.
Further, you do this to try and make "gun control" seem reasonable under a prefatory clause of "general welfare" in the Preamble rather than an actual defined duty in the operative clauses of the Constitution itself. You do this even though "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" in the Bill of Rights completely remove the Federal power from infringing our RKBA.
So yes, troll I named you and nothing you have done contravenes this opinion.
You are implying, if not outright stating, that Congress can pass whatever the hell it wants under the guise of "general welfare" and damn the Constitutions limits...
How very... Democrat... of you.
It's irrelevant. You are the one making a claim for infringement of our RKBA due to the Preamble of the Constitution. This is not an operative clause, but prefatory. This lack of basic reading skills is self evident... (Dead Corpse)
I don't think that I have mentioned anything about infringing the rights verbalized in the Second Amendment.
Now, IIRC (and correct me if I am wrong), it is a State Court (not a Federal Court) by recommendation of a licensed psychiatrist which orders the involuntary commitment of an individual into a secure psychiatric facility.
Such a person has been adjudged of being deranged, or capable of reversion to derangement; unless recertified as fit by recommendation of a licensed psychiatrist and Court Order. Now, Federal Gun Laws prohibit such a person during or after release from contact with firearms or ammo.
(1) Show me how this is infringement of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
(2) Answer me: Is a Federal law prohibiting such a person from firearms and ammo a bad law or a good law?
(3) Does such a law serve the interests and Constitutional protection of the general population?
Thank you.
It is no such thing, and your irrational response demonstrates that.
Since your logic seems to be unhinged, there will be no further exchange with you. It is clear that you are the troll here, without question.
With: "None. He just has to get a majority of both houses to agree with him."
I think we are talking past each other because you are talking about what the government has been doing, and I am talking about what the Constitution says and what our Founder intended when they wrote it.
It was obediance to the Constitution which was intended to "promote the general welfare", not the arbitrary actions of Congress despite their best intentions.
This is a statement of fact, of what it takes to get a bill passed to become law. Not that I would approve of such a thoughtless undertaking. One would hope someone would stop unConstitutional proposals, and do that early.
There can be no Federal gun laws. It violates the Constitution. You know, that pesky “shall not be infringed” thingie you keep blatantly ignoring.
You keep arguing for gun control. On a conservative web forum. You’ve been here a full decade less than I have...
Yet I’m the troll because I pointed out your blatant trolling...
You seem... Familiar. What was your previous screen name?
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.