Action put off on guns-in-parks issue

[SecularMotion]

Forsyth County commissioners remain sharply divided over whether to allow people with concealed-weapon permits to take their guns into county parks, but they decided last week to postpone action for at least a couple of weeks.

Board members learned on Thursday that even if they allow people to carry concealed weapons in parks, guns would not be allowed in Tanglewood Park because of the permit the county has there for alcoholic beverages.

They also learned that parts of Triad Park, which straddles the line between Guilford and Forsyth counties, could fall under different regulations if the two counties don't pass the same rules.

"I'm not opposed to someone carrying a weapon; I'm opposed to concealed weapons," said Commissioner Walter Marshall, calling the legislative changes that broadened the areas where people can carry concealed weapons "partisan right-wing politics."

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/jan/23/wsmet01-action-put-off-on-guns-in-parks-issue-ar-1844077/

[X_Digger]

1. Another interesting quote..

[div class='excerpt']Commissioner Gloria Whisenhunt said people are making a mistake if they believe there aren't any guns being carried into parks now.

"I'm not concerned about those who have a concealed-carry permit, but I am concerned about those who don't," she said.

[spin]

2. It looks like the idea to to make sure honest citizens do no have firearms in a park...

as it would endanger armed criminals and interfere with the exercise of their chosen profession.

[Starboard Tack]

3. How about no guns in the parks.

Or maybe gun parks for those who want to carry guns and fun parks for everyone else?

[liberal_biker]

4. Great idea...

Now, how are you going to keep the bad guys from having them? You don't think they're going to actually pay attention to a sign, do you?

Any "no guns" law just prevents the law abiding from being armed. The criminals will simply ignore the law.

[Starboard Tack]

7. There are all kinds of detection devices available.

If the park is already fenced, then entrance detectors are all that's needed. If it is an open park, then randomly installed scanning devices should do the trick. Let's face it, we don't need guns in urban public parks.

[hack89]

8. So every public place in America should have metal detectors? Really?

here we are unable to pay for education and healthcare and you want to spend billions on this?

[Starboard Tack]

10. If it saves lives, why not?

Public safety is not about money. Notice all the cameras sprouting up around the nation since 9/11? Do you think they were free?
Every public place is a little over the top. Urban areas should suffice. Let the locals decide.

[liberal_biker]

11. Why not?

Among other reasons, because the government has no authority to do so. Then there's that whole privacy thing. Lets not even begin to get into the costs.

"If it saves lives, why not"...That comment is right up there with "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"....I didn't think I would ever see such a disgusting and offensive disregard of individual rights on this forum....

[Starboard Tack]

20. Stick around, you'll witness all kinds of things around here.

But you might want to ease up on the insults.

[liberal_biker]

21. What insult? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

22. Is this how you normally walk into a room full of strangers?

"I didn't think I would ever see such a disgusting and offensive disregard of individual rights on this forum...."

[liberal_biker]

23. If someone says something disgusting

am I expected to simply keep my mouth shut and take it?

If someone made a sincere comment that slavery should be made legal again, or homosexuals should be incarcerated, or women should never vote, should I simply ignore that and let it pass lest I offend someone by pointing out how offensive it is?

If you took that comment as an insult, you may want to take a long hard look at what an insult actually is.

Yes - I find it offensive and disgusting that one would advocate the restriction of individual freedoms of any kind.

[Starboard Tack]

31. I find it offensive that you put individual gun carrying above public safety.

How about one's individual freedom to walk in a park or take the kids to the park without a bunch of handgun aficionados parading around with their personal protection tools tucked so discreetly in their fashionista fanny packs.

If the city says NO GUNS in the park, what is wrong with that. Parks are for recreation, not shootouts. You can go elsewhere, like the range, to play with your gun.

[X_Digger]

33. "Parks are for recreation, not shootouts."

As soon as you get criminals to agree with that, then we'll chat.

[SteveW]

86. "...get criminals to agree with that." Yep. That usually ends the debate....

You might be on notice that the threshold for insulting is very high for some in this forum.
















And very low for others.

[liberal_biker]

38. Actually I put individual safety above unfounded fears

You have the freedom to walk around a park all you want. What you don't have is the authority to tell others they must be unarmed. As you pointed out - the guns are discreetly tucked away. You don't even know they are there. There is no harm to you and therefore no effect on your freedom.

You want to restrict their freedom though, don't you? Why? So you can feel good? So you can tell yourself nobody is armed? So you can pretend that for a moment life is this perfectly little safe bubble?

Sorry - but real life does not allow that. Even in places where the law abiding have been disarmed, the non-law-abiding are still armed.

Incidentally, I don't play with my guns. I respect them and use them as the tools they are. It would do you well to not assume people are "playing" with lethal force.

[Simo 1939_1940]

48. "Incidentally, I don't play with my guns."

Some of the folks who "don't have a side" in this debate say the most amusing things, don't they?

One nasty and dishonest little snark and insinuation after another, it seems. One of the more infantile put-downs around here is that we "play with our guns" in public.

[spin]

54. Your desire to live a world where honest people can't carry firearms...

does not trump my right to obtain a "shall issue" concealed weapons permit from the state of Florida. Depending on where you live, there is an excellent chance that I can legally carry my handgun in your state.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity

PLEASE NOTE: The reciprocity information on this page is ALWAYS CURRENT. The Division of Licensing constantly monitors changing gun laws in other states and attempts to negotiate agreements as the laws in those states allow.

***snip***

It is important for license holders to understand that when they are traveling in or through another state they are subject to the firearm laws of that state. We have provided links to the state laws or to the licensing authorities' Web page of each of our reciprocity states so that licensees can do the necessary planning and research when preparing to travel.

FLORIDA'S RECIPROCITY STATES
Alabama (1,3,5)
Alaska (1)
Arizona (6)
Arkansas (1)
Colorado (1,4)
Delaware
Georgia (1)
Idaho (3,6)
Indiana (1,3,6)
Iowa (6)
Kansas (1)
Kentucky
Louisiana (1)
Michigan (1,4)
Mississippi (1)
Missouri
Montana (3)
Nebraska (1)
New Hampshire (1,3,4,6)
New Mexico (1)
North Carolina (1)
North Dakota (3,6)
Ohio (1)
Oklahoma (1)
Pennsylvania (1,6)
South Carolina (1,4,6)
South Dakota (1,3)
Tennessee (1,6)
Texas (1,3,6)
Utah (1,6)
Vermont (2)
Virginia (1,6)
Washington (1,6)
West Virginia (1)
Wyoming (1,3)

(1) While Florida's law allows licensees to carry stun guns, knives, and billy clubs in a concealed fashion, the laws in these states allow for concealed carry of handguns or pistols ONLY, NOT WEAPONS IN GENERAL. Florida license holders are prohibited from carrying other types of weapons while in these states.

***snip***
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html

Of course, you have every right to attempt to change the laws in the state where you live. If you do live in a state that does not allow honest people to carry, that will probably change in the near future.

Question: Do you fear police officers with firearms?

[Starboard Tack]

57. My desire is to live in a world where nobody carries handguns in public.

Do you not share that desire?
I don't fear anyone carrying firearms. I question their reasoning, including LE.

[spin]

60. No, I don't share that desire...

If nobody carried firearms the bad guys would still carry knives or just use physical force to overcome their victims.

[Starboard Tack]

61. How sad!

That point of view really is a huge part of the problem.

[spin]

62. That's just simple reality...

we don't live in either a utopia or heaven.

[X_Digger]

66. Those rose-colored glasses clash with reality. n/t

[ManiacJoe]

64. That is not a bad start.

> My desire is to live in a world where nobody carries handguns in public.

It is a good start, but a very poor stopping place. As long as folks have the need to defend themselves from criminals, using efficient weapons makes the most sense. Removing guns while not removing the criminals just leaves the less-physically-abled at the mercy of the stronger/faster, as it has always been.

[Simo 1939_1940]

47. "Stick around, you'll witness all kinds of things around here."

Amen to that!

Such as non-criminal gun owners with CCW permits endangering public safety with their concealed pistols.

And here's an especially unpleasant one - a member suggesting that crime victims get what they deserve according to the laws of karma:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11728871#post21

(Ye reaps what ye sows, dontcha know!!)

The list is literally endless.

Edited to say.......welcome to the forum, LB!

[Starboard Tack]

56. Nice one. With distortions like that, I assume you don't belief in karma.

I won't bother to alert on it. Remember, you reap what you sow.

[hack89]

14. How are you going to pay for it all? They are cutting education right now

do you want to cut education and healthcare more?

[Starboard Tack]

18. Why cut education and healthcare?

How about we cut the tens of billions spent trying to keep gunshot victims alive? If you really want to save money, you could just melt down all the handguns and make something more useful out of them.
How does the TSA pay for it's security? Oh right Homeland Security tax payer dollars. We can spend it for the privileged elite who like to fly over America, while those of us on the ground can't enjoy our parks without being surrounded by guns. Go America! Land of the free, home of the brave!

[hack89]

24. Because education and social services are the biggest chunk of local budgets

you surely are not entertaining fantasies that the federal government will be paying for it? With the Repukes in charge of the House? Nope - still would be a state or city issue.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Take it out of those HS dollars.

Plus what gets saved by the ER and first responders. How about taking the money being tossed to gun dealers and spending it on public safety rather than personal safety. Time to get some priorities straight, America.

[liberal_biker]

28. What money....

...being "tossed" to gun dealers? You mean, the money people choose to spend on firearms?

If people do not spend that money voluntarily, how are you going to get them to spend it? Oh yeah - a tax...

[X_Digger]

32. Free clue: The police have no legal responsibility to protect you.

A cop can sit eating a donut in his car and watch you get shot and not lift a finger- and there's fuck-all your family can do to legally hold him or her responsible.

Sure, they can get him fired, but I doubt that would be much comfort.

[hack89]

36. Do you appreciate how minuscule the gun economy is

compared to healthcare and public safety spending? The gun industry is tiny - no gun manufacturer is even close to being in the Fortune 500 for example.

[rl6214]

78. "the privileged elite who like to fly over America,"?

Have you been out and about in America lately? Been to an airport? Flying is like taking a bus. Once upon a time it was the privleged elite that dressed nicely and took a plane but it's just not that way anymore, people flying in their pajamas

[ellisonz]

19. More tax on gun sales.

[hack89]

25. Sales taxes are a state issue - good luck with that. nt

[liberal_biker]

29. A federal tax on firearms purchases?

Hm...don't see it happening. Plenty of supreme court precedent.

[PavePusher]

50. Pssst, there already is one.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=103

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman-Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

[ellisonz]

55. Hence "more"...

[SteveW]

87. Not if it is for the purpose of restricting 2A. nt

[X_Digger]

16. If it saves lives, we can hire every other person to be a cop and follow the other people around..

I mean, if it saves lives and all, right?

[liberal_biker]

9. Ok so your solution is....

...to control access to a park, fence it in, have it staffed 24x7 with armed police officers and scan everyone upon entry. If you don't want to fence it in, you're going to install numerous detection devices - which are just now in the testing stage, are not even close to 100% reliable, AND violate the 4th Amendment on its face - and have the devices monitored 24x7 by police officers who are ready and able to immediately swoop in and apprehend the criminal before he can do anything?

And this makes more sense to you than people making their own choices to be armed or not?

[Starboard Tack]

12. Watch a lot of movies, do you?

Public safety is an issue for local governments to decide. How they implement it is up to them. There is no violation of 4th amendment rights. CCTV cameras are already ubiquitous in urban America. The latest technology will soon be available and will not require armed cops on 24/7 surveillance duty. Just a computer.
Makes 1,000 times more sense than anyone carrying a gun in these areas.

[liberal_biker]

13. Somebody has to monitor the output

If there is nobody watching the output of the scanners/cameras/etc, then what is actually being done? Great, so they pick up a gun in the park, but nobody responds? Yeah - that's helpful.

As far as public safety being up to local governments, yes and no. A local government cannot simply disregard the rights of the people based upon unfounded fears.

There are no facts to prove private carry of firearms is a risk to the public. Since there are no actual facts, restriction of the public is based upon nothing but fear.

[Starboard Tack]

52. One person can monitor a lot of input.

If a scanner picks up what looks like a weapon, the individual can be identified visually and appropriate action taken by local LE. It really isn't that complicated, expensive or difficult. If there are no illegal guns in the park, then there is no need for anyone to introduce a legal one.
When you talk of "unfounded fears" I think that would be in the mind of the one who feels the need to be armed, but by eliminating all guns in the zone, the issue would become moot.
There is no civil or constitutional right to carry concealed weapons anywhere, let alone in an urban park.
Why are you trying to find reasons not to improve public safety?

[petronius]

30. I think you're far too optimistic about this technology, and too cavalier about the BoR

On the technology end, consider LAPD's experience with these 'cheap and easy' CCTV cameras - it's a debacle:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/24/local/la-me-police-camera-20111224

What you seem to be talking about would far more expensive and far less likely to succeed.

On the BoR end, consider the recent NYPD issue of the mobile gun-scanner (which seems to be the type of technology you're talking about). I can't see any constitutional justification for new technology that so thoroughly violates a person's expectation of privacy being widely installed in mundane public spaces like parks...

[Starboard Tack]

34. I guess we'll see what violation of privacy can be shown.

A tool that senses high density metals hardly seems to be an invasion of privacy. Especially when compared to TSA checks and government building security. We're talking specific areas here. Parks. Is nowhere sacred anymore?

[X_Digger]

37. What the fuck makes a park sacred?

Do criminals avoid the parks due to its 'sacredness'?!?

[Starboard Tack]

53. "Do criminals avoid the parks due to its 'sacredness'?!?"

No, but they should, along with anyone else who wants to engage in activities unsuitable for a public park. Do you honestly think urban parks would be more enjoyable to the general public, knowing that guns are being carried?

[X_Digger]

63. "No, but they should".. When they do, we'll chat.

[div class='excerpt']Do you honestly think urban parks would be more enjoyable to the general public, knowing that guns are being carried?

In non-criminals' hands? Yup. Because unless your inane scheme for a park-cum-prison were to come to fruition, there's nothing stopping a criminal from carrying there.

[Starboard Tack]

71. A park-cum-prison? In your mind, maybe.

You prefer the OK Corral Park.

[PavePusher]

69. "No, but they should"

Please explain how being prepared for legal self-defense is "engage(ing) in activities unsuitable for a public park". Or anywhere.

P.S. People already go to parks, knowing that criminals may be there. I doubt more than a tiny minority would be dissuaded by legally armed, verified non-criminals.

[Starboard Tack]

70. What on earth do you mean?

"People already go to parks, knowing that criminals may be there." Like people go there to find criminals? What nonsense. Why would people go to parks thinking there were criminals there. I can't imagine what kind of parks you frequent.

[SteveW]

88. "No, but [criminals] should." They will be blinded by the glare of your logic...

Frankly, I don't think many people will give a damn one way or the other about the carrying of guns, since the thug is not at all prevented from carrying one, and the "general public" is probably quite aware of that. Of course, if enough thug are carrying in parks, they will be the only ones in it.

Signs will not accomplish anything, except to dissuade the lawful citizen from carrying. But that is the goal for some gun-controller/prohibitionists -- disarming citizens so they cannot engage in self-defense.

[Starboard Tack]

91. If you feel that going to the park means engaging in self defense

maybe you should go somewhere you feel safe instead. There must be somewhere you can go and feel safe without needing a gun. Or you might just want to go somewhere with your gun like a gun park. Why not designate special parks for all those who like carrying guns. Then you can talk to each other and compare guns and gun stories and have lots of fun and nobody will be even the least offended by even the thought that there might be folk with guns around their kids.

[petronius]

92. If it's not firearms it'll just be something else. So really, a better solution would

be for the people who are so easily squicked out by the private and personal behavior others to just stay home themselves (with their precious munchkins, of course). That way they can avoid any risk of being offended by the polluting presence of others, and the rest of us can enjoy the parks, happily minding our own business...

[SteveW]

94. Uh, no. You miss-read again...

I feel perfectly safe in most parks in my city, and even in the outdoors where I hunt.

"Gun parks" are an aesthetic of your creation, not relevant to the chief purpose of carrying a gun (in parks or elsewhere): self-defense.

I don't see why you, I or anyone else should feel threatened or have a less enjoyable experience at a park because someone has taken down the mystical signage which declares (sans puff of smoke) that guns have disappeared. When I was growing up, I never saw such silly signage. Ah, but "the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there." (Harold Pinter)

[liberal_biker]

39. You don't think so?

I expect to have what I carry restricted on an airplane. Don't like it but I expect it. However, in public, while walking through a wide open park, by what authority does the government search me just to see if I have something? Yes, like it or not, scanning me without my permission is an illegal search.

There is nothing special about a park - its simply open area. Why should I have to give up my self defense tools? Just so you can tell yourself that I'm not armed as you walk past me? Tell yourself that anyway - you'll never know if I am or not, unless you give me reason to defend myself.

[petronius]

51. Why would a park be sacred?

It's public space, and no matter how much you don't like guns in public you don't get to declare this area or that area as 'sacred' or 'where guns just don't belong' without some sort of specific and compelling foundation...

And like I said, your notion of privacy just seems far too loose and authoritarian: in general, are you comfortable with the widespread and not-specifically-justified use of technology that gives police information about the contents of people's pockets, purses, bodies, etc? Are you willing to dump out your backpack for inspection at the whim of a cop on the street (or in a park)?

(But of course, it's somewhat moot - this technology you envision is far less available and far more expensive than you seem to imagine.)

[rl6214]

80. And how is that surveillance going to stop someone from taking a gun into a park?

[spin]

15. Wow. Maybe we could have TSA agents at the gates to the parks...

and we could buy x-ray machines and scanners and do pat downs!!! We could harass little old ladies in wheel chairs who brought their grandchildren to the park to play.

Think how many people we could employ!

And if we did all that, the bad guys would just climb over the fence to the park. So of course we would have to buy Predator drones...

[Starboard Tack]

26. Too much TV and movies in your life. Not enough reality.

The technology is available to implement gun free zones with minimal human staffing. The cost savings would pay for such public safety many times over. Why wouldn't you want to live in a safer environment, if it were shown to be possible? I'm starting to be a little skeptical of those who purport to carry for personal safety. This question gets asked a lot around here "Who's going to guarantee my personal safety?" Well, it's guaranteed on airplanes now, yet some here have stated that they would like to be able to carry on commercial flights. Go figure. I think for many it has become more about "gun love" than anything else. All the 2A bullshit and whining about feeling defenseless and the "thugs" and rapists behind every tree crap, is just smoke and mirrors to justify an obsession with handguns.

[liberal_biker]

40. Precisely the opposite

I'm well aware of where technology lies. Bear in mind, without some human involvement, all those scanners do is monitor - nothing more. They cannot stop a person who has committed the crime.

Safety isn't guaranteed on airplanes at all. You just think it is because the TSA has lied to you and said no bad people got on.


Whatever my reasons are for carrying, as long as I cause you no harm, why do you care?

See, that's the part I really cannot understand. I'm not harming you. You don't even see my gun. You just don't like the idea that I might have one and want it to be illegal. Why?

[spin]

41. So you set up a metal detector at the gates to a park...

You have to hire people to monitor the metal detector and they probably would have to be armed. But since bad guys can scale a fence, you have to hire armed security to patrol the park. That still would not eliminate bad guys with guns as unless the patrolling security had some form of metal detection, they would be unable to determine if a person was armed.

So we end up spending hundreds of millions of dollars or a couple billion to secure our parks.

On the other hand we could allow licensed civilians to carry in the park. If I can legally carry a handgun in public, why is it a big deal for me to be allowed to carry one in a park? Florida allows me to do so.

End of local concealed-gun bans worries officials across South Florida
September 30, 2011|By Mike Clary, Sun Sentinel

Want to pack heat for a trip to the beach? Hate visiting city hall without a weapon? Annoyed by having to disarm before taking the kids to the library or park?

Your worries are over, provided you have a valid concealed-carry permit.

Effective Saturday , many of South Florida's "No guns allowed" signs are gone. That's thanks to a new state law imposing fines of up to $5,000 on county and municipal officials, and even threatening them with removal from office, if they enforce firearms and ammunition restrictions other than those spelled out by state statute.

The state legislation has been on the books since 1987. But because it did not contain any penalties until now, many local governments passed their own, more restrictive laws.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-09-30/news/fl-gun-laws-effective-20110930_1_gun-violence-local-firearms-regulations-bans

I predict few if any problems will occur because of the change in the law. A few local jurisdictions had set up their own gun laws and snubbed their noses at the state of Florida. I have carried in parks and libraries in many areas of Florida where it was legal as have many other people with carry permits. No significant problems caused by people with carry licenses occurred in those areas in the past and there is little reason to expect a sudden rash of shootings by honest people now. Those who oppose legal concealed carry always predict a return to the Wild West if honest people are allowed to carry firearms. It never happens.

[Hoyt]

46. Yea, the criminals might dig a tunnel to take their guns into the park.

[hack89]

43. So you support a surveillance state? Patriot Act didn't go far enough for you? nt

[Starboard Tack]

59. I do not support the Patriot Act or a surveillance state.

I do support applying technology that can pick up on lethal devices, be they bombs or guns. Not a technology that lines people up and scans them, but one that senses these devices at a distance and only then homes in on the source, which may be a suitcase or an individual. Nothing intrusive about that.

[hack89]

65. Which means that in public places citizens are been surveilled by the government

without their knowledge. How is that not a surveillance state?

[X_Digger]

67. That *is* a surveillance state.

That is a 'search' as defined by the SCOTUS in Katz.

Derp.

[Starboard Tack]

72. A dense metal detector is a search? What drivel.

Into conspiracy theories, are we?

[X_Digger]

74. Yesterday's SCOTUS decision must have caused your authoritarian streak to squeak, eh?

Police scanning you while walking through a public space, where you have an expectation of privacy? Yeah, that's a 'search'.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Got me pegged, don't you? You must live in a very isolated place.

Cameras are everywhere in this country, especially since 9/11. Your right to privacy in public places went away years ago. Get used to it. Metal detectors are way less intrusive than cameras and x-ray body scanners.
I'm sure you would be as happy as the next guy if a suicide bomber were thwarted by using such a device. Nobody is going to take your precious pistol away, but you may have to show your permit more often. Big deal. Small price to pay for public safety.
You might consider wearing a cape and tights with a big X on your chest, then everyone would know you are one of the good guys and not to mess with you.

[X_Digger]

81. "secure in their persons" - ring a bell? -- fuck that anti-4th amendment noise.

You feel free to cozy up to the granny-gropers and their apologists.

Me? No thanks.

[PavePusher]

75. Explain, please, how it is not a search. It is looking for something...

not apparent to external observation, i.e. a search.

[Starboard Tack]

76. It is detecting objects in a given area, not focusing on individuals.

If you smell smoke and then locate a fire in someone's home, you didn't find the fire by searching people's homes. Come on PP, you're smart enough to wrap your head around this one.

Intrusive searching would be x-raying individuals as they pass through an entrance, or patting them down. What I'm talking about starts with the illegal object and ends with locating it. What possible objection could you have to that?

[PavePusher]

83. This is, effectively, an X-ray, although by a slightly different mechanism.

And it very much is searching individuals.

P.S. The objects being searched for are not "illegal" unless it's determined they are being carried by a disqualified person. In other words, the search is being based on violating a Constitutional Right to see if someone is exercising another Constitutional Right. Are you begining to see the light yet?

[Kingfounds]

95. Spam deleted by petronius (MIR Team)

[one-eyed fat man]

73. Did I miss something somewhere?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/scotus_01-23.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html

Seems like the Supreme Court finds the Fourth Amendment bars your notions.

As Orson Welles put it, "A policeman's job is only easy in a police state."

When you go to the airport, you are giving your consent, implied or coerced, but you walk through the scanner if you want to get on the plane.

Or you learn how to fly and don't worry about it.

[Starboard Tack]

82. And when you go to an ATM you are giving your consent.

Walking down the street you are giving your consent. Entering a supermarket you are giving your consent. Being on the internet you are giving your consent. Smile, you're on Candid Camera.
Welles wrote it. Charlton Heston said it.

[PavePusher]

84. "Walking down the street you are giving your consent."

The hell I am.

[Starboard Tack]

90. Sure you are unless you wear a mask. It's de facto consent.

The cameras are there. It's no big secret. If you carry a cellphone, then you're being tracked by GPS. Big bother is here already. You are labeled and tagged whether you like it or not. So, one more metal detector isn't going to intrude too much on your life, especially if you can't see it. Sound familiar?

[PavePusher]

93. If you can not see the difference between a camera (and I oppose those, by the way)....

which does nothing more than external observation, and metal detectors or other devices that can image under clothing (a search) than we will have little to discuss.

[petronius]

85. Giving consent to be seen, perhaps (even by a camera)

Not giving consent to an electronic inspection of the contents of your pockets, purse, backpack, or innards...

[rl6214]

77. And you are going to have an armed cop by the entrance metal detectors

to stop those that set off the alarms?

[Hoyt]

44. How many crimes do you think get committed in those parks now? Not many and certainly not enough

to allow any yahoo to pollute the peaceful parks with their lethal weapons and suspect mentality.

[spin]

58. That depends on the park...

There has been a lot of violence and some shootings in a park in the small Florida town where I live. None of these problems were caused by citizens with concealed carry permits. They involved criminals doing criminal things which is usually what happens.

[PavePusher]

6. So, how much are the fences and security check-points going to cost?

I say we man them with volunteers... starting with all the folks who advocate for them.

You'll be first in line, amIrite?

[Hoyt]

45. Oh, God, the "we can't afford it" arguement . . . . . .so often used by right wing obstructionists.

[PavePusher]

49. You find the money for it, I'll consider it. Good luck. n/t

[X_Digger]

68. How about you support 6ft of fencing, we'll even put a plaque up with your name like anti-littering.

You ready to pony up?

[Atypical Liberal]

5. Another interesting quote...

"Commissioner Bill Whiteheart, who has a concealed-weapon permit himself, said that the county shouldn't do anything to further restrict the carrying of concealed weapons or the open carrying of weapons, either.

Whiteheart acknowledged that he violates the existing ordinance because he keeps a gun locked in his vehicle while attending commissioners' meetings.

"It is illogical and inconvenient for concealed-carry permit holders," Whiteheart said."

[ileus]

17. any decision on if they plan to allow criminals with guns into country parks?

[Glassunion]

35. More importantly.

Will criminals still be allowed to carry their guns in all of the parks?

[liberal_biker]

42. They aren't allowed now..

They do anyway though...