[Gay State Conservative]

I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I don't care for *this* bill.It's easy to see a disgruntled husband,for example,who was just told by a judge that he won't be able to see his kids going crazy and doing God-knows-what.There are plenty of other things that could happen as well.

[rurgan]

This against individual freedom, increases government power, another law: like we need anymore of that. We need to go the other way, reduce the number of laws, reduce regulations , reduce government size and reduce government power.

[PapaBear3625]

I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I don't care for *this* bill.It's easy to see a disgruntled husband,for example,who was just told by a judge that he won't be able to see his kids going crazy and doing God-knows-what.There are plenty of other things that could happen as well.

The bill says that if guns are to prohibited in a building, then security measures need to be installed (ie, metal detectors, etc) to ensure that guns are not brought in. In every court building that I've been to, they DO have metal detectors, for exactly your reason.

The only thing accomplished by a "no guns" rule for a non-secured building is to ENSURE that a crazy or a criminal will be the ONLY one with a gun (unless there's armed security).

[marktwain]

I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I don't care for *this* bill.It's easy to see a disgruntled husband,for example,who was just told by a judge that he won't be able to see his kids going crazy and doing God-knows-what.There are plenty of other things that could happen as well.

The proposed bill would prevent the above scenarios through the use of metal detectors and armed guards. How does the current law do so?

[Ratman83]

Why dother to lie, if you support the second amendment then you support the citizen being able to carry.

Shall not be infringed does not mean well the government can infringe if they want to.

[OneWingedShark]

>It’s easy to see a disgruntled husband,for example,who was just told by a judge that he won’t be able to see his kids going crazy and doing God-knows-what.

Interesting you should bring this up; what of Jurors? (Yes, a jury might be needed; the value in question being more than $20.)
According to the USSC, there is no affirmative obligation for Law Enforcement to ensure the safety of a private citizen; yet the Juror is obligated to go to the courthouse to perform his duties, a place where the carry of firearms by a “mere citizen” is verboten. I guess it’s fine to disarm them and then ensure that there is no obligation to protect them, no?