Just a quick question or two.
Good morning. First time here. Not trying to start a fight or anything so forgive me if I sound insolent.
eye95, in one of your responses you stated that they should get rid of the GFSZ. Do you mean for OC? If so, I can definitely see your point as concealed carry already has the ability to carry in GFSZ.
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/codeofalabama/1975/13A-11-72.htm
- Items c and e - Allows for (licensed) concealed carry on school property as long as there is no "intent to do bodily harm"; although an amendment was offered by England it was voted down and so -72 is not touched by SB286.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
- Item q.2.B.ii - Allows states to preempt GFSZ if carrier is licensed in state where school is located.
ADobbs1989, in post #50 you stated the "catch all" phrase where "any public building can post a guard, detectors, or turnstiles and effectively prohibit people from carrying there". The current version of SB286, to be voted on (for concurrance) today, reads as follows:
"Inside any building or facility to which access of unauthorized persons and prohibited articles is limited during normal hours of operation by the continuous posting of guards and the use of other security features, including, but not limited to, magnetometers, key cards, biometric screening devices, or turnstiles or other physical barriers."
I believe "AND" (guards and the use of other security features) is the key word there.
Again, forgive me if I sound insolent.
Good morning. First time here. Not trying to start a fight or anything so forgive me if I sound insolent.
eye95, in one of your responses you stated that they should get rid of the GFSZ. Do you mean for OC? If so, I can definitely see your point as concealed carry already has the ability to carry in GFSZ.
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/codeofalabama/1975/13A-11-72.htm
- Items c and e - Allows for (licensed) concealed carry on school property as long as there is no "intent to do bodily harm"; although an amendment was offered by England it was voted down and so -72 is not touched by SB286.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
- Item q.2.B.ii - Allows states to preempt GFSZ if carrier is licensed in state where school is located.
ADobbs1989, in post #50 you stated the "catch all" phrase where "any public building can post a guard, detectors, or turnstiles and effectively prohibit people from carrying there". The current version of SB286, to be voted on (for concurrance) today, reads as follows:
"Inside any building or facility to which access of unauthorized persons and prohibited articles is limited during normal hours of operation by the continuous posting of guards and the use of other security features, including, but not limited to, magnetometers, key cards, biometric screening devices, or turnstiles or other physical barriers."
I believe "AND" (guards and the use of other security features) is the key word there.
Again, forgive me if I sound insolent.