Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Open carry?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Seth247" data-source="post: 1488886" data-attributes="member: 12010"><p>Because that is plain, easily understood English, and therefore completely illegible to highly educated politicians and judges. <img src="/images/smilies/smile.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>In all seriousness. Some of the language is necissary to close small loopholes in interpretation that could be exploited but I'd say a majority is tradition and showmanship. After all they are congressmen and so they must sound high-falutin.</p><p></p><p>Since our house of reps possibilities are shot, I need to learn more about SB129, from what I'm reading it appears to have started life as a bill allowing the use of supressors for hunting on private property, which should be legal everywhere if lawmakers had any sense, but all that got tossed and was replaced with wording allowing wholly or partially open carry to anyone over 18 that can legally own a handgun, and applying the same locational restrictions as apply to concealed carry permit holders. Am I correct?</p><p></p><p>Is this an accepted practice? Just tossing the entire content of a bill and swapping in something else? Why not just introduce a new bill? Is the language about suppressors on private property then shunted to the round file?</p><p></p><p>My trackers show that it was engrossed to the house. And has been refered to the public safety commitee. Does that mean tibbs can shut it down?</p><p></p><p>Sorry for asking so Many questions but you guys seem in the know.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Seth247, post: 1488886, member: 12010"] Because that is plain, easily understood English, and therefore completely illegible to highly educated politicians and judges. :) In all seriousness. Some of the language is necissary to close small loopholes in interpretation that could be exploited but I'd say a majority is tradition and showmanship. After all they are congressmen and so they must sound high-falutin. Since our house of reps possibilities are shot, I need to learn more about SB129, from what I'm reading it appears to have started life as a bill allowing the use of supressors for hunting on private property, which should be legal everywhere if lawmakers had any sense, but all that got tossed and was replaced with wording allowing wholly or partially open carry to anyone over 18 that can legally own a handgun, and applying the same locational restrictions as apply to concealed carry permit holders. Am I correct? Is this an accepted practice? Just tossing the entire content of a bill and swapping in something else? Why not just introduce a new bill? Is the language about suppressors on private property then shunted to the round file? My trackers show that it was engrossed to the house. And has been refered to the public safety commitee. Does that mean tibbs can shut it down? Sorry for asking so Many questions but you guys seem in the know. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Open carry?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
