Mississippi Senate Bill 2469

360glitch · 01-21-2011, 01:55 AM

No idea how far this will get, but here is some positive legislation that is currently pending:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/MS_SB2469.pdf

01-21-2011, 04:57 AM

A Big +1 - If your reading this and You are NOT a N R A Member, SHAME ON YOU !!!

Join the NRA here:

sigp229r · 01-21-2011, 04:13 PM

I have mixed feelings... On the one hand, its a plus for the right to carry side. But on the other hand, allowing carry in unsecured areas of secured public buildings can open up an avenue to have some idiot open fire towards the secured side from the unsecured side resulting in multiple shooting victims. This will cause the anti-gunners to start a gun control campaign, possibly causing the state to lose their right to carry. Some times certain legislation causes more harm than good. But I guess its how you look at it.

360glitch · 01-21-2011, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigp229r

I have mixed feelings... On the one hand, its a plus for the right to carry side. But on the other hand, allowing carry in unsecured areas of secured public buildings can open up an avenue to have some idiot open fire towards the secured side from the unsecured side resulting in multiple shooting victims. This will cause the anti-gunners to start a gun control campaign, possibly causing the state to lose their right to carry. Some times certain legislation causes more harm than good. But I guess its how you look at it.

The reason I do not worry about this happening is that this bill only pertains to conceal carry permit holders, and I can't think of a single case where a "crazed shooter" ever turned up to be legally carrying a concealed firearm. In my humble opinion, permit holders are absolutely NOT the people you have to worry about.

sigp229r · 01-21-2011, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 360glitch

The reason I do not worry about this happening is that this bill only pertains to conceal carry permit holders, and I can't think of a single case where a "crazed shooter" ever turned up to be legally carrying a concealed firearm. In my humble opinion, permit holders are absolutely NOT the people you have to worry about.

I agree, in most cases the permit holders are not the people you have to worry about... From a public safety standpoint, if a building is to have restricted and unrestricted areas, hopefully the building will have some sort of fortified barrier to separate the restricted and unrestricted areas sort of like at the airports. This will minimize the "ah shits" from occurring.

360glitch · 01-21-2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigp229r

I agree, in most cases the permit holders are not the people you have to worry about... From a public safety standpoint, if a building is to have restricted and unrestricted areas, hopefully the building will have some sort of fortified barrier to separate the restricted and unrestricted areas sort of like at the airports. This will minimize the "ah shits" from occurring.

I think somewhere in the bill it defines secured areas as those that require use of metal detector scanning or individual screening. If that is the case they will be well separated as you mentioned.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar SIG Talk Discussions
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hello from South Mississippi	sigpro2022	New Users	2	02-09-2012 07:16 PM
Howdy from Mississippi	BubbaT	New Users	6	10-29-2010 06:00 AM
Another NEWBE from Mississippi	TomBomb	New Users	4	10-14-2010 05:58 PM

01-21-2011, 01:55 AM	#1
360glitch Forum Admin Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Clinton, MS Posts: 1,176	No idea how far this will get, but here is some positive legislation that is currently pending: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/MS_SB2469.pdf

01-21-2011, 04:57 AM	#2
Jim-Bob Guest Posts: n/a	A Big +1 - If your reading this and You are NOT a N R A Member, SHAME ON YOU !!! Join the NRA here:

01-21-2011, 04:13 PM	#3
sigp229r Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: California Posts: 1,700	I have mixed feelings... On the one hand, its a plus for the right to carry side. But on the other hand, allowing carry in unsecured areas of secured public buildings can open up an avenue to have some idiot open fire towards the secured side from the unsecured side resulting in multiple shooting victims. This will cause the anti-gunners to start a gun control campaign, possibly causing the state to lose their right to carry. Some times certain legislation causes more harm than good. But I guess its how you look at it.