Jump to content


Photo

Apartment Building Posted


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 28 November 2017 - 09:22 AM

I get my haircut in downtown Arlington Heights. Usually I park on the street and, so, I have a little walk. Well, one day I was passing by the entrance of an apartment (or condo) building and noticed it's posted. I have no intention of going in there...but I was curious.

I believe in the right of private property owners to control who enters and even what substances/objects enter. It's their property and I believe it's their right to have whatever superstitious beliefs they want governing their property. But, I was wondering...can they legally prohibit tenants with concealed carry licenses from carrying in their own homes? Would it matter if it's an apartment or a condo?

 

Anyone have the answer?



#2 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,317 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 28 November 2017 - 09:29 AM

They can prohibit carry in common areas such as a pool area, meeting rooms, etc. but they cannot prohibit carry in the living areas and they cannot deny a resident's right to carry while entering and leaving their home.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#3 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 28 November 2017 - 11:17 AM

Very interesting...if not convoluted and confusing. I wonder if the building ownership or association who put up the sign understands the meaning. LOL.



#4 VannDaddy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 13

Posted 28 November 2017 - 01:17 PM

So if I were going to a friend’s home in this building, what would I be required to do? Disarm prior to entering the foyer and rearm in the apartment? Or am I ok with walking through and keeping a direct route to said friend’s domicile?

#5 blck10th

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 695 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 15

Posted 28 November 2017 - 04:50 PM

So if I were going to a friendâs home in this building, what would I be required to do? Disarm prior to entering the foyer and rearm in the apartment? Or am I ok with walking through and keeping a direct route to said friendâs domicile?


Iâd venture to guess since you do not have residence there you wouldnât be covered and should leave it locked in your car.
But I have no idea for sure.
Iâm just trying to think like a IL politician. Thatâs not a easy task either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Edited by blck10th, 28 November 2017 - 04:51 PM.


#6 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,751 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 28 November 2017 - 05:58 PM

 

So if I were going to a friendâs home in this building, what would I be required to do? Disarm prior to entering the foyer and rearm in the apartment? Or am I ok with walking through and keeping a direct route to said friendâs domicile?


Iâd venture to guess since you do not have residence there you wouldnât be covered and should leave it locked in your car.
But I have no idea for sure.
Iâm just trying to think like a IL politician. Thatâs not a easy task either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

So you temporarily removed most of your frontal lobe then?


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#7 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,972 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 28 November 2017 - 06:14 PM

So if I were going to a friends home in this building, what would I be required to do? Disarm prior to entering the foyer and rearm in the apartment? Or am I ok with walking through and keeping a direct route to said friends domicile?


Transporting unloaded and fully encased is an option.

.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#8 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,314 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 28 November 2017 - 06:40 PM

 

Iâm just trying to think like a IL politician. Thatâs not a easy task either.



 

 

Illinois politicians don't think.   They feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel.    They feel like taxing more.   They feel like spending more.  They feel around our pockets for more money.

 

But if they DID think, this is how they'd think:   

 

 

Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Guns are evil!   Horrible!   Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Which crony am I supposed to enrich today?  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Guns are evil!  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.   How does mike Madigan want me to vote on this bill?  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me...

 


Edited by BobPistol, 28 November 2017 - 06:46 PM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#9 civilone

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 38 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 16

Posted 28 November 2017 - 06:54 PM

From IL FCCA Section 65(a-10) "The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control. The owner must post a sign in accordance with subsection (d) of this Section indicating that firearms are prohibited on the property, unless the property is a private residence."  If I saw a sign on an apartment building, practically speaking I would have to decide when I go back to my car if I would convert to FOID carry (in Mauserme's post) or not carry in any form.  I could convert from FOID to CC once in an apartment or remain at FOID carry.  And convert back to FOID carry if I elected to go to CC in the apartment.  Holy moly.  Extrapolating this out each apartment owner would have to post the sign on their door if they did not want CC.  Holy moly again.  Property rights versus gun rights.  Fortunately I have not run into any homes, apartments, etc. that are posted and businesses that post do not get my business.  I have a buddy that lives in a large condo building (formerly apartments) that is not posted.  Before I helped him move there I asked what he thought about CC and he was fine with it and still is.  He supports 2A but does not have any desire to own a gun.  Perhaps since he is a history buff and/or we have specifically discussed Federalist Papers 46 and others he understands what the 2nd Amendment is for and why it is so unique on the world's stage then and now.  


Edited by civilone, 28 November 2017 - 06:56 PM.


#10 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 29 November 2017 - 09:56 AM

Extrapolating this out each apartment owner would have to post the sign on their door if they did not want CC.  

 

Yes and no. You have the right to prohibit carry in your home without a sign. A verbal request in a private residence by the resident is legally binding. I suppose they could post a sign if they wanted to. The sign is pretty ugly. My guess is most people wouldn't want it on their front door. I also think, as dumb and illogical as they can be at times, anti-gun people realize putting a "no guns" sign on their house provides a reassurance to criminals that they won't face armed resistance inside. Although...I suppose you could prohibit other people from carrying in your home while carrying yourself. But, my guess is, you'd have to be a real loon and very staunchly anti-gun to go through the trouble of posting your home.

I have many anti-gun friends and relatives. I carry in their homes all the time. I don't reveal that I'm carrying. They either don't know I have a license...or don't think I carry all the time...or believe I left it in my car...or are too timid to ask me to not carry in their residence. I don't bring it up. They don't bring it up. Everyone lives in harmony. 


Edited by soylentgreen, 29 November 2017 - 09:59 AM.


#11 Cerus

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,276 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 16

Posted 29 November 2017 - 03:34 PM

From IL FCCA Section 65(a-10) "The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control. The owner must post a sign in accordance with subsection (d) of this Section indicating that firearms are prohibited on the property, unless the property is a private residence."  If I saw a sign on an apartment building, practically speaking I would have to decide when I go back to my car if I would convert to FOID carry (in Mauserme's post) or not carry in any form.  I could convert from FOID to CC once in an apartment or remain at FOID carry.  And convert back to FOID carry if I elected to go to CC in the apartment.  Holy moly.  Extrapolating this out each apartment owner would have to post the sign on their door if they did not want CC.  Holy moly again.  Property rights versus gun rights.  Fortunately I have not run into any homes, apartments, etc. that are posted and businesses that post do not get my business.  I have a buddy that lives in a large condo building (formerly apartments) that is not posted.  Before I helped him move there I asked what he thought about CC and he was fine with it and still is.  He supports 2A but does not have any desire to own a gun.  Perhaps since he is a history buff and/or we have specifically discussed Federalist Papers 46 and others he understands what the 2nd Amendment is for and why it is so unique on the world's stage then and now.  [/size]



I think landlord tenant laws say the property is “yours” - so for legal purposes, you are the owner provided you are a legal tenant. If it was their office or business then that law applies. But a home or apartment you are renting is your domicile. They can’t take away a constitutionally protected right.

#12 20jlr

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • Pip
  • 93 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 12

Posted 11 July 2018 - 09:16 AM

Can an apartment building include the complete ban on all 2A items by its residents

#13 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,118 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 11 July 2018 - 09:24 AM

Can an apartment building include the complete ban on all 2A items by its residents

Unless included in terms of signed lease my understanding is no. As for CCL, they can post the building which affects the common areas but that does not apply to individual units nor, I think, the path from door to your abode although FOID carry as mentioned becomes an option as well.

I could be wrong and I am not a lawyer.

Edited by InterestedBystander, 11 July 2018 - 09:26 AM.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️
Rauner, Harold, 46th HD:Kinzler, 55th HD:Smolenski, 91st HD:Unes

#14 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 11 July 2018 - 11:28 AM

Can an apartment building include the complete ban on all 2A items by its residents

 

Let's say they did. Who will enforce it? If they discover you have a firearm in your apartment (I'm not sure how they would discover it), it's a civil matter. They would have to sue you, because you've broken no criminal law. My guess is the police won't care.

If you've signed a lease stipulating you won't keep guns, you might lose. It you haven't it's virtually guaranteed that you'd win.



#15 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 11 July 2018 - 11:32 AM

Can an apartment building include the complete ban on all 2A items by its residents

 
Let's say they did. Who will enforce it? If they discover you have a firearm in your apartment (I'm not sure how they would discover it), it's a civil matter. They would have to sue you, because you've broken no criminal law. My guess is the police won't care.

If you've signed a lease stipulating you won't keep guns, you might lose. It you haven't it's virtually guaranteed that you'd win.


If anyone signs a lease prohibiting firearms, then they keep firearms, the landlord would just evict them. If the resident refuses to leave, THEN there's a lawsuit.
It's still a civil matter, not a criminal one.

#16 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 11 July 2018 - 11:45 AM

 

 

Can an apartment building include the complete ban on all 2A items by its residents

 
Let's say they did. Who will enforce it? If they discover you have a firearm in your apartment (I'm not sure how they would discover it), it's a civil matter. They would have to sue you, because you've broken no criminal law. My guess is the police won't care.

If you've signed a lease stipulating you won't keep guns, you might lose. It you haven't it's virtually guaranteed that you'd win.

 


If anyone signs a lease prohibiting firearms, then they keep firearms, the landlord would just evict them. If the resident refuses to leave, THEN there's a lawsuit.
It's still a civil matter, not a criminal one.

 

 

Provided the landlord is able to discover that the firearms are there in the first place. I'm not sure how they'd do that. I also think a lawsuit like that has a lot of risks for the landlord. The court may decide that it's illegal for a landlord to require a person to sign away their constitutional freedoms in the same way the courts have decided that consumers can't sign away their lawful consumer rights.

Honestly, I'd walk away if a landlord even asked if I own guns much less sign a lease saying I won't keep any. To me, that's an indicator of a mentally unstable loon and I do not want to have contact with that person on a long-term basis or a business relationship with them either.

When I hear someone advocating a GFZ or posting one on their business or property, I ask the simple question: "Who do you think that sign is protecting you from?" When it comes down to it, they think they're making a statement against guns as things. They're icky. They're simply repulsed by the idea of guns themselves. I don't believe these people actually think the sign is going to protect them from criminals.



#17 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 11 July 2018 - 11:58 AM

If anyone signs a lease prohibiting firearms, then they keep firearms, the landlord would just evict them. If the resident refuses to leave, THEN there's a lawsuit.
It's still a civil matter, not a criminal one.


... The court may decide that it's illegal for a landlord to require a person to sign away their constitutional freedoms in the same way the courts have decided that consumers can't sign away their lawful consumer rights.
...


There's SAF, ISRA Sue East St Louis Housing Authority Over Gun Ban for Residents, because that housing authority, and many others, prohibit firearms in the residences. I'm not aware of any previous cases where a tenant won a 2A case against a landlord.

Personally, I expect the SAF and ISRA to win the linked case, not because of the consumer rights analogy, but because courts have decided tenants and even hotel guests have 4A rights that derive from their ability to have a private space secured by a locked door. A case that puts 2A and 4A on equal terms would be a good start.

Edited by Euler, 11 July 2018 - 11:59 AM.


#18 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,890 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 11 July 2018 - 12:32 PM

$$ Maybe the landlord is a prohibited person, and he/she is doing their due diligence to prevent themselves from having access to them. $$

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#19 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,966 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 11 July 2018 - 03:16 PM

If anyone signs a lease prohibiting firearms, then they keep firearms, the landlord would just evict them. If the resident refuses to leave, THEN there's a lawsuit.It's still a civil matter, not a criminal one.... The court may decide that it's illegal for a landlord to require a person to sign away their constitutional freedoms in the same way the courts have decided that consumers can't sign away their lawful consumer rights....There's SAF, ISRA Sue East St Louis Housing Authority Over Gun Ban for Residents, because that housing authority, and many others, prohibit firearms in the residences. I'm not aware of any previous cases where a tenant won a 2A case against a landlord.Personally, I expect the SAF and ISRA to win the linked case, not because of the consumer rights analogy, but because courts have decided tenants and even hotel guests have 4A rights that derive from their ability to have a private space secured by a locked door. A case that puts 2A and 4A on equal terms would be a good start.

Winbigler v. Warren Co. (IL) Housing Authority. After being educated on the rights detailed in Heller I, Warren Co. changed their policy prohibiting firearms in public housing units and asked the judge to dismiss the case. The key here is that it's Public Housing, and the government (not a private landlord) that was trying to deny Mr. Winbigler's right to keep a firearm in his dwelling.

The Constitution protects our rights from being infringed upon by the government, not another private citizen.

Edited by stm, 11 July 2018 - 03:17 PM.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#20 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 11 July 2018 - 03:21 PM

 


The Constitution protects our rights from being infringed upon by the government, not another private citizen.

 

 

THIS! And this is why I can't understand why any public building can be made off-limits to the second amendment freedoms. If we say your domicile is the only place you can practice your freedoms, this isn't a free society at all.



#21 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 11 July 2018 - 04:53 PM

Winbigler v. Warren Co. (IL) Housing Authority. After being educated on the rights detailed in Heller I, Warren Co. changed their policy prohibiting firearms in public housing units and asked the judge to dismiss the case. The key here is that it's Public Housing, and the government (not a private landlord) that was trying to deny Mr. Winbigler's right to keep a firearm in his dwelling.

The Constitution protects our rights from being infringed upon by the government, not another private citizen.


Even though the outcome was a win for Winbigler, the court didn't rule on the constitutionality of the anti-2A lease provision. It just enjoined the housing authority from enforcing it, because the housing authority already agreed out of court to remove it. In the ruling, the court stated

This Order only pertains to the specific lease provisions above and is neither controlling nor dispositive as to any future lease provision that Defendant WCHA may implement concerning possession of firearms or other weapons on or about its property including individual residences.

In other words, the injunction does not prohibit the housing authority from re-instituting a firearm ban. It also doesn't prohibit any other leasing agencies from banning firearms in their leases.

If East St. Louis doesn't back down, the court could make a precedent-defining decision in that case. Otherwise, I agree that such a decision would not necessarily apply to private leasing agencies. Bummer that. Maybe the next case.

And this is why I can't understand why any public building can be made off-limits to the second amendment freedoms.


The freedom to use a bathroom at a state park....

But seriously, if the court gets a chance to rule on the constitutionality, maybe it's a way to go at the Gun Free School Zone Act on constitutional grounds, because it'll be a Federal precedent. We just need East St. Louis not to back down like Warren County did.

#22 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 12 July 2018 - 08:22 AM

 

The freedom to use a bathroom at a state park....

But seriously, if the court gets a chance to rule on the constitutionality, maybe it's a way to go at the Gun Free School Zone Act on constitutional grounds, because it'll be a Federal precedent. We just need East St. Louis not to back down like Warren County did.

 

 

Excellent points. 

I think there are some public buildings that should be off limits...such as civilians carrying guns on a military base or a nuclear facility (inside the actual reactor building). I could see a reasonable argument for controlling security tightly at a military base and I can see that a nuclear reactor is very intolerant to a gun accident that could pierce a cooling line or something like that. I can't see a reason why a licensed civilian shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun in a school, or the public area of a police station or city hall or park district building or library. 



#23 Skolnick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 14

Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:15 PM

Provided the landlord is able to discover that the firearms are there in the first place. I'm not sure how they'd do that.

A copy of Guns & Ammo on the table where the postman leaves 2nd class mail and oversized packages, an NRA sticker on your car, toting a blue range bag that says "Beretta" on the side, or a baseball cap that says "Make America Great Again", are all indications that snowflakes can interpret as "homicidal psychopath".

 

 


When it comes down to it, they think they're making a statement against guns as things.

Hence the term "virtue signaling".

 

Holding up a sign gets more impressions for less effort than accomplishing something meaningful.



#24 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 12 July 2018 - 03:51 PM

I think there are some public buildings that should be off limits...such as civilians carrying guns on a military base or a nuclear facility (inside the actual reactor building). I could see a reasonable argument for controlling security tightly at a military base and I can see that a nuclear reactor is very intolerant to a gun accident that could pierce a cooling line or something like that. I can't see a reason why a licensed civilian shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun in a school, or the public area of a police station or city hall or park district building or library.


What? You value a nuclear reactor above your own children!?

I'm kidding, but expect that reaction from anti-2As.

Nuclear reactors and some other areas are fortified against unauthorized intrusion. Most nuclear reactors are private property, anyway. You could make a similar argument for courthouses, as long as absolutely everyone goes though security screening. Military bases as gigantic GFZs just seem bizarre to me.

#25 DomG

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 14

Posted 12 July 2018 - 04:23 PM

Hopefully all this silliness will be ended in the next year or two with Justice Kavanaugh helping to rule on the legal definition of "shall not be infringed."

"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus"
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus

NRA Life Member
ISRA
USCCA
IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired (So I guess that makes me a Life Member)


#26 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,118 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 12 July 2018 - 04:33 PM

Hopefully all this silliness will be ended in the next year or two with Justice Kavanaugh helping to rule on the legal definition of "shall not be infringed."


https://www.theguard...nconstitutional
Supreme court pick could make assault weapons ban unconstitutional

Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s nominee for the highest court, has a clear record of gun rights advocacy and could tip the balance
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️
Rauner, Harold, 46th HD:Kinzler, 55th HD:Smolenski, 91st HD:Unes

#27 Raw Power

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 13 July 2018 - 08:02 AM

They can prohibit carry in common areas such as a pool area, meeting rooms, etc. but they cannot prohibit carry in the living areas and they cannot deny a resident's right to carry while entering and leaving their home.

 

Spot on.

 

Anything else included in a lease prohibiting legal firearms is not enforceable by law. 



#28 Raw Power

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 13 July 2018 - 08:05 AM

 

 

Can an apartment building include the complete ban on all 2A items by its residents

 
Let's say they did. Who will enforce it? If they discover you have a firearm in your apartment (I'm not sure how they would discover it), it's a civil matter. They would have to sue you, because you've broken no criminal law. My guess is the police won't care.

If you've signed a lease stipulating you won't keep guns, you might lose. It you haven't it's virtually guaranteed that you'd win.

 


If anyone signs a lease prohibiting firearms, then they keep firearms, the landlord would just evict them. If the resident refuses to leave, THEN there's a lawsuit.
It's still a civil matter, not a criminal one.

 

 

Good luck to that landlord.

 

The tenant would be getting 3-7 months rent, and if that landlord is trying to terminate a lease over a gun, rather than non-payment of rent, assume those 3-7 months of rent are not getting paid.



#29 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 13 July 2018 - 10:23 AM

 

Provided the landlord is able to discover that the firearms are there in the first place. I'm not sure how they'd do that.

A copy of Guns & Ammo on the table where the postman leaves 2nd class mail and oversized packages, an NRA sticker on your car, toting a blue range bag that says "Beretta" on the side, or a baseball cap that says "Make America Great Again", are all indications that snowflakes can interpret as "homicidal psychopath".

 

 

 

Unfortunately for the landlord, a copy of Guns & Ammo is not probable cause for him to search the contents of your apartment. LOL.



#30 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 13 July 2018 - 10:27 AM

 

I think there are some public buildings that should be off limits...such as civilians carrying guns on a military base or a nuclear facility (inside the actual reactor building). I could see a reasonable argument for controlling security tightly at a military base and I can see that a nuclear reactor is very intolerant to a gun accident that could pierce a cooling line or something like that. I can't see a reason why a licensed civilian shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun in a school, or the public area of a police station or city hall or park district building or library.


What? You value a nuclear reactor above your own children!?

I'm kidding, but expect that reaction from anti-2As.

Nuclear reactors and some other areas are fortified against unauthorized intrusion. Most nuclear reactors are private property, anyway. You could make a similar argument for courthouses, as long as absolutely everyone goes though security screening. Military bases as gigantic GFZs just seem bizarre to me.

 

 

Imagine the trouble Major Hassan would have had killing all those people if soldiers on the base were armed...or even if the MPs were  armed. I believe the local police were the first armed people on the scene. That is just plain ridiculous. The military ought to provide their own security and I think members of the military who have a reason to be armed ought to be armed on base...and members of the military who have concealed carry licenses ought to be allowed to conceal on base. Licensed civilians carrying on base...I have no problem with it. But, I could understand if it were restricted. It's a secure location...or should be.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users