|
Alphecca is a member of "the lunatic fringe of the US right" --Guardian (UK) 6/26/06 *******************
Email me at:
gunnut -at- alphecca -dot- com Check it out:
My Latest Blatherings...
Do We Need "Assault Weapons?" DC Congressional Seat Tied To Gun Rights Go Stats Installed Grass Roots & Gun Rights Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes. . . Gun Control Bills Advancing Bye-Bye SiteMeter Gun Rights in Texas KS Bill Would Overrule City Gun Laws Some Good News More on Alphecca and IE 7 More on Giuliani on Gun Control Bloomberg Pushes Pelosi on Gun Control NY: Now it's Bullet Control Trouble Reading Alphecca With IE7? Hit Job on Gun Rights Lawyer WaPo & Guns: A Good Question SCOTUS Review of DC Circuit Could Sidestep Central Issue George Will Warns Dems on Gun Control Meanwhile in Knife-Free Scotland. . . Dell Computer Support Howler of the Day Friday Bear Blogging Idiot of the Day on Gun Rights MO: Bill To Prevent Gun Confiscations Advances Proximity Laws Against Guns? No Slippery Slope? Stuck in Massachusetts Please Welcome... NY: Gov. Spitzer to Promote Hunting?
Care to comment?
Take your best shot:
Note: Comments close-down on posts after seven days.
Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer" Alphecca gets noticed! Check out these GLOWING REVIEWS I've just made up:
|
November 17, 2006Minn. Churches Exempt From "No Guns" SignsAccording to the Pioneer Press, law abiding gun owners will just have to guess:
Kind of begs the question: If a church doesn't want CCW holders to carry in their place of worship, and they don't post a sign or orally inform people of that, then how the hell are their parishioners supposed to know? Posted by Jeff Soyer at November 17, 2006 05:56 AM Comments
Strange. I don't know if that's better or worse than in Michigan. In Michigan, concealed-carry permit holders have to request permission from the presiding official before carrying into a building owned by or used for religious services. Why exempt anyone from posting signs about such things? To compare, what if a building owner was allowed to declare the property a "No Smoking" are without posting signs or informing anyone verbally? Not that smoking is protected in the Constitution, but still...the idea of informing people of such restrictions before the restrictions can be considered effective is pretty basic. Posted by: karrde at November 17, 2006 08:59 AMCarry anyway. Surely if God is offended you will find out, right? Posted by: tkdkerry at November 17, 2006 12:28 PMStay away from churches. They're free fire zones. Let them suffer. Sounds good to me. This sounds to me like what I call a "laundry list" law. You know, when you read about some guy who's been charged not only with murder, but assault with a deadly weapon, brandishing a firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, possesion of a stolen weapon, carrying ammunition in an unapproved container and spitting on the sidewalk. They're bargaining chips in the "plea" dance. If you keep your concealed weapon concealed, you aren't going to have a problem. Posted by: bud at November 20, 2006 01:59 PMthe comment input form disappears. Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that. By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah. See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips. |