[marktwain]

“In this “headline”, what we have is a hypothesis contrary to fact. Here’s a restriction on registered security guards. She isn’t a registered security guard, so it’s not a restriction on how she can be armed. But if she HAD BEEN a registered security guard (which she, in fact, wasn’t) then she MIGHT HAVE BEEN (Or, I wouldd htink, would certaianly have been) restricted from carrying her lovely Beretta 92-FS, which is one of the sweetest guns I own, though I prefer my sigp226, and, if I AM ombliged to carry a revolver, I usually carry my S&W 686P.”

I do not know the legal definition of “security guard” in the city ordnance. I used “may” because the ordnance may apply to her, though I think that unlikely.

I don’t claim that grammer is my strong suit, but I am willing to learn from those more learned than I.

[Mad Dawg]

As you can tell, I like grammar and related issues. But at least I know I’m weird! I hope my pedantic rant didn’t sound like it was aimed at you. It’s just the kind of thing that happens sometimes, you know, too much coffee, too much fee time, a strong desire to avoid getting ready for Xmas, suddenly the difference between May and Might is the most important thing in the world!

[jess35]

Had the article mentioned that IF Assam had been hired by the Church as a security guard she’d be restricted to a revolver, it would have been more accurate. She can be a security guard and carry a semi automatic as a private citizen while not on duty. In any event, it’s a stupid regulation. Speedloaders and a lot of practice will even the odds.