Topic: Gun Control
Congratulations, Harrold, Tx! Are you Listening, Atlanta, Ga? Finally, a school district gets it right, and gives the teachers a chance to protect the lives of students. I hope the mayor of Atlanta is listening.by EJ Moosa
(libertarian)
Friday, August 15, 2008
The Texas school district in Harrold is on the right track. With law enforcement officers potentially thirty minutes away, the school district has recognized that armed teachers just might be the best defense against an attack.
As I have written in the past, just one gun may be all that is needed to end a threat. History has shown us the absence of guns has not stopped an attack once it begins.
Now if we could only get the officials of Harrold, Texas to discuss their decision with the mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin, who is absolutely certain that the best way to protect me is to disarm me, a logic which I do not grasp.
Recently, the state of Georgia passed and signed into legislation House Bill 89, which allows those with permits to carry concealed weapons to carry their weapons in locations that years past were off limits. Many of these laws were passed after the end of the Civil War, to prohibit blacks from having weapons in public.
Some of the locations that we could not carry concealed weapons included near bus stops(define near for me please), and restaurants that served alcohol.
The new law was debated and specifically passed to allow people such as myself, who have passed a background check, been fingerprinted, and signed affidavits regarding our backgrounds to carry concealed weapons into restaurants serving alcohol (it is illegal for us to consume alcohol at a restaurant while I carry), and to ride mass transit(an area known for easy prey of victims as we were certain to be unarmed).
When the law became effective, the mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin declared the airport a gun-free zone and threatened to arrest anyone with a concealed weapon. She has also dragged the TSA into the arguement, asking them to declare that the non-sterile areas(those you enter prior to going through the metal detectors) as the domain of the Feds, and subsequently not subject to Georgia State law.
A lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of people like myself, who have every right to protect ourselves against the threat of predators. Georgiacarry.org has taken the initiative and is working diligently to protect my Second Amendment Rights. In fact, with less than 2500 members, they have overturned more bans unconstitutional under Georgia law than any other gun rights group in Georgia.
If you have been to the Atlanta Airport, then you will understand why a law-abiding citizen would appreiciate the opportunity to protect themselves. Row upon row of vehicles where predators can lie in wait for you where the predator knows you are unarmed is not a comforting feeling. Driving home from the airport without your gun is an option many of us would choose to not make.
There are also many areas where it would take more than thirty minutes for the police to locate and respond to your call for help in the Atlanta Airport Parking lots. So if the school district in Harrold, Texas, recognizes that thirty minutes is too long to respond to an immediate threat, why doesn't the city of Atlanta?
Congratulations, Harrold, Texas. I would wager that if a predator wants to attact students, your school will not be one they will target.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 22 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of EJ Moosa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. EJ Moosa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The Bill of Rights allows no infringements, upon the pre-existing right, of all citizens to bear arms. All laws and regulations that seek to prevent citizens from exercising that right, in any area, are unconstitutional and thus, are actually against the law.
The Constitution is the law of the land, the federal, state or local government do not actually have the authority to regulate the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, or elsewhere in the Constitution. Any infringement that has been enacted, in any area, exists solely because the citizens have allowed those rights to be abused. Thus, the people can and should fight, by voice and ballot, to have those unconstitutional laws overturned.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." - United States Constitution, article VI.
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted (protected) by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled \'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.\'" —MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2009-06-10 13:29:27
I would think it all depends on which constitution we read.
The original or the one put out by the Corp. THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Which was put in power in 1871 and until very recently was listed on Dunn and Bradstreet !
Both are almost identical yet the second one has only a few words changed to give power to the "gov"
If you filter the second constitution through legalese, you will realize that what we take as common sense words mean something totally different.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
