The No-Gun signs with the slash in the upper right hand of the Anderson County Courthouse doors went down Wednesday, but the signs proclaimng no-guns in judicial areas remain. (Donna Smith/The Oak Ridger)
Oak Ridger
People with carry permits can now carry guns into the Anderson County Courthouse, except on the third floor where judicial proceedings take place.
The four signs that featured a slashed-out gun illustration were removed from the wooden doors at the Courthouse’s entrances Wednesday — following a vote by the Anderson County Commission on Monday night.
According to Anderson County Commissioner Steve Mead of Oak Ridge, the county’s authority to prohibit people with gun carry permits from carrying their guns into the Courthouse ended in February 2009.
Allowing those with legal permits to carry their guns into the Courthouse if they wish will make the Courthouse safer, he opined at Monday night’s Commission meeting.
Good for Anderson County.
ReplyDeleteIn Minnesota permit holders are allowed to carry in county facilities with prior notification. Just like at the State Capitol building. Just like in Tennessee, this doesn't apply to court rooms.
ReplyDeleteThe notification is just that. Telling them you are going to be carrying on premises, it isn't asking permission.
That's interesting that you don't consider that asking permission. Many similarly minor gun restrictions are called just that by you guys.
DeleteIt isn't permission because the Sheriff cant legally say no. Its a one time notification that you intend to carry. That does remind me that I need to send my letter in to the county and the Capitol.
DeleteNo, Mikeb, you keep calling your demands minor, but how is subjecting potential gun owners to a tribunal, making us take medical and psychological tests, requiring us to have our home inspected, banning many types of common guns, banning owning ammunition if we don't have a registered gun to go with it, issuing carry licenses only to the favored few, and on and on considered minor?
DeleteBut guys, how dare they require a special letter from you in order to be allowed to exercise your god-given, natural-human and Constitutionally protected right to arm yourselves? Sounds like infringement to me.
DeleteGlad to see you're understanding the concept of rights, Mikeb.
DeleteWon't be long until somebody gets shot in the courthouse.
ReplyDeleteYou figure a sign was keeping that from happening?
DeleteYou gun loons just don't get it, which is why more laws are needed to protect innocet victims from you.
DeleteThe sign very well might prevent a tragedy. Every day we read about so-called lawful gun owners who lose it. Up until the critical moment they were following the rules, then bham. Gun free zone signs do indeed prevent some incidents.
DeleteMikeb, you have a bizarre view of humanity. We're not a bunch of wackos on a hair trigger. But if this really is how you see us, I can understand why you don't want us having guns. Of course, since your view of things is false, you may want to seek help for your delusion.
DeleteGreg, I don't think you're ALL "a bunch of wackos on a hair trigger" but as you see from my posts day after day, too many of you are just that.
DeleteAnd yet, as we've discussed repeatedly, you exaggerate the percentage of gun owners and carry license holders who do wrong. You make claims without evidence and demand repressive laws and the basis of those claims.
DeleteAnd as you prove everyday, you could care less about needless death from gun shot whether it's one million, or just one.
DeleteAnonymous, as I've explained to you many times, I care about innocent people getting shot. But I also know that gun control isn't the solution. I haven't converted to your religion.
DeleteHistory proves gun control has worked, so I don't accept your lie. Yes, you have proven over and over again, that you could care less about gun deaths.
DeleteThat's where you're lying, Greg. You even slipped up once and admitted that gun control, as I define it, would work but the price is too high. You said that extremely strict gun control infringes on your rights and therefore is unacceptable regardless of whether it would work or not. You immediately realized that was a difficult position to support, too cold-blooded, I suppose, so you denied ever admitting it. This touches on our never-ending argument over inconvenience vs. violation of rights. You have to exaggerate the difficulty of my proposals in order to have more solid ground to stand on while opposing them. You're a total phony, Greg. You know gun control is the answer, but like your betters, Emily and Wayne, you deny it would work. Transparent bullshit is what that is.
DeleteMikeb, what I've said to you is that your proposals would disarm good people without removing guns from bad people. I've said that gun control such as you see it might shift the numbers slightly, but at costs that are too high. I never said gun control would work. I've offered you examples of things that would work, but those are too hard for the lazy control freaks.
DeleteAnonymous, "history" proves it? The word by itself? Or would you care to offer some evidence?
Have many times before. The fact you do not know history, is why your are the sites lying idiot coward.
DeleteAnonymous, you make a lot of claims, but never offer proof. You see, calling someone a coward without being willing to back up your words is ironic.
Delete"Might shift the numbers slightly?" Well that sounds like a begrudging admission, of course the slightly part is a lie and you know it.
Delete"Without removing guns from bad people," is a real mind blower, Greg. How could criminals NOT be effected by proposals like mine? If you lawful gun owners were constrained by law to lock up your guns at home, that wouldn't lessen the number of guns stolen each year? Please answer that question straight up, yes or no.
Mikeb, you love to demand yes or no to questions that are more complex. No, I don't know that your demands would do anything more than shift the numbers slightly. I don't even know that the numbers would shift at all. In fact, since many good people would be disarmed, those numbers could very well increase.
DeleteI also know that in a country with 300,000,000+ guns, most of them unregistered and many transferred to new owners since the original sale, criminals would have no problem getting guns. In a country with long borders that can't stop drugs or illegal migrants from crossing, criminals would have no problem getting guns.
All your demands would do is disarm a lot of good citizens. Which brings me back to a question I've asked you repeatedly: Why do you want to disarm good people?
Readers of this site and the site's author, point out your lies daily. So add another lie to your list of lies.
DeleteAnd you love to answer simple yes or no questions with paragraphs of bullshit. I repeat:
Delete"If you lawful gun owners were constrained by law to lock up your guns at home, that wouldn't lessen the number of guns stolen each year? Please answer that question straight up, yes or no."
Mikeb, the problem is that you ask questions that require more detailed answers and then demand a yes or a no. But I'm not going to dumb things down.
DeleteThe site coward refuses to answer another rational question, no surprise.
DeleteNow that's a pretty slick personal attack. You're not going to "dumb things down" for me, as if I'm one who needs things dumbed down. Cute.
DeleteBut, you still haven't answered the question. "If you lawful gun owners were constrained by law to lock up your guns at home, that wouldn't lessen the number of guns stolen each year? Please answer that question straight up, yes or no."
Let's move this discussion to a new post, whaddya say?
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2013/12/a-question-about-safe-storage-laws.html
All the proof I need is your lying words, and they have been printed many times. Since you refuse to respond, that makes you a coward.
ReplyDelete