Should fans be allowed to bring guns into stadiums? (FoxNews hit piece)

Fox News Video ^ | 12/14/2016 | Rob Demetrious of FoxNews

[disclaimer]

Should fans be allowed to bring guns into stadiums?

Dec. 14, 2016 - 2:34 - Three Republican Washington state representatives introduce bill that would permit licensed firearms inside sports stadiums.

See the Rob Demetrious Foxnews Video.

[arthurus]

Where in the Amendment does it specify that or do you "just know?" Liberals "just know" a lot of things that are not stated in the Constitution and we excoriate them for it.
The first Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law..." It applies to Congress. It says so. Where is the equivalent clause in the Second Amendment that says it applies to Congress? or to any other discreet unit of society? It says "...shall not be infringed." If anyone at all infringes then he is in contravention of the Second Amendment. It is absolute. The wording does NOT admit of exceptions. The only possible modification in the whole Constitution is the involuntary servitude clause that might make it legal for judicially convicted and incarcerated people to be deprived of their right to KBA.

[arthurus]

I am saying that you can tell someone to leave your property for any reason. You have no Constitutional recourse to confiscate his gun on your property or to have him removed because he is armed. You can require him to leave or have him removed because he is trespassing and has not your permission to be on your property. It is a fine distinction but a necessary one.

[Almondjoy]

So you are saying that you can’t make a law that says you can’t bring a gun into your house with or without your permission yes? So private property doesn’t matter at all? The framers thought it would be perfectly ok for you to run around wherever you wanted on any property you wanted with a gun on your side?

[arthurus]

I am saying that a property owner can tell someone he must not bring a gun onto his property but that he cannot then constitutionally remove that person for that reason. If he wishes to remove the person he has to tell him to leave. If he doesn't leave he can be removed for trespassing because he was told to leave. I said it is a fine distinction but it is a valid one. If you do not understand fine distinctions and the nuances of law, well, I can't help you there and you just have to stay convinced that I hate your private property. Well, so be it.

[arthurus]

I am saying that a property owner can tell someone he must not bring a gun onto his property but that he cannot then constitutionally remove that person for that reason. If he wishes to remove the person he has to tell him to leave. If he doesn't leave he can be removed for trespassing because he was told to leave. I said it is a fine distinction but it is a valid one. If you do not understand fine distinctions and the nuances of law, well, I can't help you there and you just have to stay convinced that I hate your private property. Well, so be it.

[Almondjoy]

Isn’t that what happens already? If you come strapped to the screening station they ask you to leave. So are you appreciating the law for what it already is?