Origianlly posted by Rusty JC
This is getting into a touchy area here because "right to carry" rights are bumping into "private property" rights.
You are exactly right, anything to do with guns or other rights etc. is always a touchy area (believe it started the Revolution that formed this country), and usually either side will not change or alter their position according to what the other side presents.
Which Articles of the Bill of Rights, carries precedence over others?, cause they can be deleted or added to by Constitutional procedure as has occurred in the past. Another example, might be bad, incomplete, inaccurate reporting (even malicious) but hiding behind freedom of the press, as a universal right no matter what (often the solution is we do not admit any wrong doing, but will print a retraction , or settle for something)
The interesting thing about the MN. version of carry (my understanding from I have heard, of course my vewpoint might be biased) is that the issue of parking lots was put in to allow people to carry but if the Owner/User of the building (Church for one example, employer, home owner, for others) did not want firearms inside, the person could leave the firearm in their car, yet retain the right to carry for the remainder of the journey (maybe a form of compromise). Again from what I have heard this particiular church (2 pastors more specifically) is against weapons, war, any form of violance, protection etc. including having any kind of firearms for any use, and actively participating against anything to do with the previous items, so they are biased and using their rights of religion against another right to have firearms.
This system of governing may not be perfect, but it sure beats the alternatives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is getting into a touchy area here because "right to carry" rights are bumping into "private property" rights.
You are exactly right, anything to do with guns or other rights etc. is always a touchy area (believe it started the Revolution that formed this country), and usually either side will not change or alter their position according to what the other side presents.
Which Articles of the Bill of Rights, carries precedence over others?, cause they can be deleted or added to by Constitutional procedure as has occurred in the past. Another example, might be bad, incomplete, inaccurate reporting (even malicious) but hiding behind freedom of the press, as a universal right no matter what (often the solution is we do not admit any wrong doing, but will print a retraction , or settle for something)
The interesting thing about the MN. version of carry (my understanding from I have heard, of course my vewpoint might be biased) is that the issue of parking lots was put in to allow people to carry but if the Owner/User of the building (Church for one example, employer, home owner, for others) did not want firearms inside, the person could leave the firearm in their car, yet retain the right to carry for the remainder of the journey (maybe a form of compromise). Again from what I have heard this particiular church (2 pastors more specifically) is against weapons, war, any form of violance, protection etc. including having any kind of firearms for any use, and actively participating against anything to do with the previous items, so they are biased and using their rights of religion against another right to have firearms.
This system of governing may not be perfect, but it sure beats the alternatives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!