Senate Bill 724 Could Exempt Athletic Facilities from Concealed Carry

[NaturalStateReb]

Yes I know there is another thread going about guns in the stadium. I felt it was important to high lite this one more time. For all you who think this amendment will pass, the vote is going to be close. The NRA is putting their usual pressure on the legislators to vote no. They are going to use this vote to grade them and that could cost them being re-elected if they choose to run again. The potential to lose NCAA baseball, track and gymnastic regionals is there. If you care about these things, then I would ask you talk with your local legislator this morning. For all you who say that guns are already in stadium then fine why do you need this law. For full disclosure, I have a CCL. Just don't think this particular gun right is good policy.............

Because admitting that guns don't always make us safe destroys the logic underpinning the entire NRA effort.  If guns don't make us safer in stadiums, where else might they not make us safer?  The NRA can't really go around having society asking that question.  It's really bad for business.

[V-town Hog]

This is all fascinating. It is interesting that the majority assumption is that we will all turn into Yosemite Sam once the law is enacted. Right or wrong that is where I think the opposition is coming from. I don't think we would all lose our minds, however I don't think they should be allowed in the stadium. Not because of safety, but property rights. If a university doesn't want them on campus, then they should not be there. They have that right, just as much as I do on my own property. On the other hand, the ARLEG should not have laws prohibiting the rights of gun owners either. It should pass laws freeing us to self-govern on this. Unfortunately, I think we have been conditioned to depend on government to tell us what to do.

[jneal56]

I don't think any rational person would say they trust a CCP carrying citizen to take a shot in a stadium with 70,000 people. You give no credit to hysteria and what will happen if a citizen takes that shot.

Don't compare Arkansas to Alabama. Perception is something Arkansas already has to deal with and this will only add another negative aspect to it.

Are you trying to tell me this won't concern parents or recruits? Especially how other coaches will overstate it and blow it way out of proportion? Even Coach B has voiced his concerns.

Your personal opinion seems very out of touch with reality.

Everyone's personal opinion is very out of touch with reality if it does not line up with yours. I'm saying that as a generality and not aimed at you specifically. That is how we as human beings react. If someone doesn't believe what we believe, then it isn't  just a difference in opinion, it's the other person has lost all touch with reality and they're an idiot. It's unfortunate but that is how we all tend to think. Just look at the difference between the Rep's and the Dem's right now.

[hogcard1964]

This is all fascinating. It is interesting that the majority assumption is that we will all turn into Yosemite Sam once the law is enacted. Right or wrong that is where I think the opposition is coming from. I don't think we would all lose our minds, however I don't think they should be allowed in the stadium. Not because of safety, but property rights. If a university doesn't want them on campus, then they should not be there. They have that right, just as much as I do on my own property. On the other hand, the ARLEG should not have laws prohibiting the rights of gun owners either. It should pass laws freeing us to self-govern on this. Unfortunately, I think we have been conditioned to depend on government to tell us what to do.

+1000

Post of the thread.

[hog of steele]

I guess it comes down to choosing between taking reasonable preventive measures to ensure public safety vs. outright endorsement of a terrible idea.

There is the problem. "reasonable preventative measure" isn't really in the constitution. And once you start walking back rights, it all goes up for grabs. I don't like the idea of guns in RRS. But I also don't like the government deciding when and where i can exercise my rights. If RRS were privately owned, it would be an entirely different situation.

[PonderinHog]

What concerns most fans is what is downhill for this snowball to roll over. This has the potential to severely damage Razorback sports.

Not to mention innocent bystanders.

[Hogberry Snortcake]

Truly ridiculous

[jneal56]

With that many guns around and everyone armed, it really shouldn't have been called the Wild West, since it was so safe.  It really should have been called the Safe West.

We've actually tried having everyone armed to the teeth in this country before, and we didn't like the results.  It wasn't an accident.

The wild west really wasn't as wild as the movies and spaghetti western books would like you to think. How's it working out in Chicago by the way. Guns are illegal. It's impossible to be shot there by someone who doesn't have a CC right? Laws are broken by the people who care less about their fellow man. At least if they break this law that means they aren't carrying.

[V-town Hog]

What concerns most fans is what is downhill for this snowball to roll over. This has the potential to severely damage Razorback sports.

I understand. Again, I think it needs to be clear that the University is free to ban firearms if they choose to. Which I assume they would.

[hog of steele]

What concerns most fans is what is downhill for this snowball to roll over. This has the potential to severely damage Razorback sports.

Should we be concerned that what should be a discussion of rights afforded by the constitution is taking a back seat to how it might effect a sports team? I love my hogs. But given the choice between protection from unreasonable search and seizure and hogs winning in sports, I take the protections.

[Boss Hog in the Arkansas]

Where did this even come from? Was this even a big need?

[Boss Hog in the Arkansas]

Should we be concerned that what should be a discussion of rights afforded by the constitution is taking a back seat to how it might effect a sports team? I love my hogs. But given the choice between protection from unreasonable search and seizure and hogs winning in sports, I take the protections.

Heck I'd take a cavity check at each game if it meant winning the SEC 

[hogcard1964]

Where did this even come from? Was this even a big need?

A lot of melting after HB 1249 passed.

[NaturalStateReb]

This is all fascinating. It is interesting that the majority assumption is that we will all turn into Yosemite Sam once the law is enacted. Right or wrong that is where I think the opposition is coming from. I don't think we would all lose our minds, however I don't think they should be allowed in the stadium. Not because of safety, but property rights. If a university doesn't want them on campus, then they should not be there. They have that right, just as much as I do on my own property. On the other hand, the ARLEG should not have laws prohibiting the rights of gun owners either. It should pass laws freeing us to self-govern on this. Unfortunately, I think we have been conditioned to depend on government to tell us what to do.

All it'll take is one Yosemite Sam emptying their piece after a "perceived threat" in the stadium to turn that day into a bad day, especially if others start doing the same because they hear the shots and feel threatened.  You'll have ricochets, misses, return fire, all in a concrete box filled with people.  If you don't think you could end up with an unintentional bloodbath just because someone thought they saw something or got overheated in a fight or argument, you're wrong. 

It only takes once to make us famous forever, and that kind of damage both to people and reputations can't be made right.  Maybe that's what'll take though to restore some actual sanity about this sort of stuff.

[V-town Hog]

Should we be concerned that what should be a discussion of rights afforded by the constitution is taking a back seat to how it might effect a sports team? I love my hogs. But given the choice between protection from unreasonable search and seizure and hogs winning in sports, I take the protections.

Isn't that what is at the heart of this debate? The ARLEG is trying to usurp the University's rights to their property, in the name of another right to bear arms. It's modern government at its finest. All of the Bill of Rights was intended to protect private property, including Search & Seizure.

[EastexHawg]

I understand. Again, I think it needs to be clear that the University is free to ban firearms if they choose to. Which I assume they would.

The university is governed by and receives its funding from the legislature.  It is a part of state government and its administrators aren't allowed to disregard state law because they disagree with it.

[Peter Porker]

So how does this apply then?

Arkansas Code
Arkansas Concealed Handgun Carry Licensing

§5-73-306. Prohibited places.
.
(11) Any athletic event not related to firearms;

that lawmaker on Bo's show needs to read hogville.

[hogcard1964]

Your opinion of the 2nd ammendmant is that it extends to all citizens being able to carry a firearm into a stadium of 70,000 no matter the circumstance?

Unfortunately, all law abiding citizens aren't allowed to carry.  Only those with additional extensive training and a CC license. 

[V-town Hog]

The university is governed by and receives its funding from the legislature.  It is a part of state government and its administrators aren't allowed to disregard state law because they disagree with it.

Thanks. I am unclear how it is classified by law. That's why it is so fascinating. I was under the impression that it was treated as private institution with corresponding rights and privileges.

[HogHolio]

I didn't ask what you thought about guns in schools or theaters. I asked you what happens when an armed bad guy goes to those places and starts shooting and no one else has a gun.

No one is saying cops are gonna start shooting into a crowd of people. They are trained to know what their back stop is and not take reckless shots.

But when they finally can get to a shooter or assailant, they have to be able to meet deadly force with deadly force.

You are trying to make an argument that scissors can beat rock and that is never the case. Never.

Don't assume the police at the games are a bunch of fools with no discipline or training.

I understood exactly what you were asking.  I thought it was a rhetorical question as the response is obvious.  My point is there is a difference between a stadium and a movie theatre/school.  A movie theatre/school generally doesn't have a gate check with security, nor is there 70k people in a confined space.  I would expect the difficulty to get into a stadium with 100 rounds of ammo and a couple of guns is unlikely, in most schools I could do this today. 

As for your response on training that only goes so far.  I see people trained to respond in a certain way, but when the fhit hits the san they don't always respond as trained.  Plus where exactly in a stadium with 70k people is there a safe backstop, there are very few.  My preference is simply the use of rubber bullets or tasers to keep from killing non-target.  Besides if a person really wanted to do the most damage they would attack outside of the stadium where they could have access to much more weaponry and still have a high concentration of people.           

I understand your point, I just don't necessarily agree.  Am I concerned now if police have guns in a stadium - NO, because I think the likelihood of them actually discharging is very slim.  But if others have guns then it is likely there will be skirmishes at some point and some idiot will discharge and the response for that has a much higher chance of turning ugly as the number of guns increases.   

As for your statement about a scissor versus a rock it isn't always that clear, just like our discussion.  If I'm in a fight to the death and I have a pair of scissors and you have a rock or even a gun, put me 2 feet from you and I will likely win. 

[jneal56]

I don't think any rational person would say they trust a CCP carrying citizen to take a shot in a stadium with 70,000 people. You give no credit to hysteria and what will happen if a citizen takes that shot.

Don't compare Arkansas to Alabama. Perception is something Arkansas already has to deal with and this will only add another negative aspect to it.

Are you trying to tell me this won't concern parents or recruits? Especially how other coaches will overstate it and blow it way out of proportion? Even Coach B has voiced his concerns.

Your personal opinion seems very out of touch with reality.

First question is, why can't I compare Arkansas and Alabama? Other than football, what is so different about the perception of Arkansas and Alabama? Not much if any.

Secondly, I never said I trusted anyone to shoot anywhere. I just asked would you rather wait for security while the crazy is emptying his/her clip, or would you rather have someone who is already right there that may be able to diffuse it before several people are injured or dead?

Also I never said it wouldn't concern parents of recruits. Hell we say we have to recruit Texas more and we know how much Texas loves their guns so it may give us a leg up down there. Now all joking aside, every parent has a concern about where their child goes to school. It doesn't matter where it's at. Look at the Universities that have had shooters and/or knife wielding crazies on their campuses. Has their enrollment dropped? Aren't the parents concerned? Every time we get inside our vehicle and drive on the interstate we are taking a chance that something bad may happen and we do it every day. Check the odds of how a person may more than likely lose their life. Is it by a mass shooting or is it by a car accident? I trust that you looked at the stats. Are you ready to go back to horse and buggy? We can get two birds with one stone here because then road rage would probably diminish considerably, causing some of those gun related deaths to decline as well.

[parallaxpig]

Any idea what time this vote will take place?

I'm being told after 1:30

[PorkRinds]

There is the problem. "reasonable preventative measure" isn't really in the constitution. And once you start walking back rights, it all goes up for grabs. I don't like the idea of guns in RRS. But I also don't like the government deciding when and where i can exercise my rights. If RRS were privately owned, it would be an entirely different situation.

The government decides where you can exercise your rights all the time.

[NaturalStateReb]

The wild west really wasn't as wild as the movies and spaghetti western books would like you to think. How's it working out in Chicago by the way. Guns are illegal. It's impossible to be shot there by someone who doesn't have a CC right? Laws are broken by the people who care less about their fellow man. At least if they break this law that means they aren't carrying.

First, guns aren't illegal in Chicago.

Second, the Wild West was dangerous--very.  That's what made it wild.  There's a reason it wasn't the Mild West or the Safe West.  That's why towns started enacting ordinances against open carry.  They'd seen those saloon shootouts and arguments turned violent, and they didn't like the results. 

Laws are broken by upstanding people all the time--been speeding lately?  The courts are full of otherwise decent people making occasional lapses in judgement.  A lapse in judgement on this score can cost someone--maybe a lot of someones--their life. 

We don't have a problem right now with violence in the stadium that needs armed spectators as a solution.  This is nothing but the good idea fairy at work--a solution desperately seeking a problem.

[V-town Hog]

All it'll take is one Yosemite Sam emptying their piece after a "perceived threat" in the stadium to turn that day into a bad day, especially if others start doing the same because they hear the shots and feel threatened.  You'll have ricochets, misses, return fire, all in a concrete box filled with people.  If you don't think you could end up with an unintentional bloodbath just because someone thought they saw something or got overheated in a fight or argument, you're wrong. 

It only takes once to make us famous forever, and that kind of damage both to people and reputations can't be made right.  Maybe that's what'll take though to restore some actual sanity about this sort of stuff.

I agree. I don't think they should be permitted. However, it should be left to administration to decide, not legislators.

[ricepig]

Not to mention innocent bystanders.

[Talon]

If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

I just took a look at the vote on HB1249. Almost all of the Progressives voted against it. Almost all of the Regressives voted for it.

The Regressive party owns this and should pay for it in the next election.

[hog of steele]

Isn't that what is at the heart of this debate? The ARLEG is trying to usurp the University's rights to their property, in the name of another right to bear arms. It's modern government at its finest. All of the Bill of Rights was intended to protect private property, including Search & Seizure.

Their property? This isn't Hendrix. This is a public university. It's public property. Or do you think that your entire bill of rights is supsended when you step on campus?

[NaturalStateReb]

I agree. I don't think they should be permitted. However, it should be left to administration to decide, not legislators.

They're certainly in a much better place to make that judgement--and accept the responsibility--than legislators. 

[hogcard1964]

All of this griping is over nothing.  They'll cave and allow the exemption to stand.

[hog of steele]

Your opinion of the 2nd ammendmant is that it extends to all citizens being able to carry a firearm into a stadium of 70,000 no matter the circumstance?

My opinion of the second ammendment is that it says, "the government shall make no law..."

No law. Is pretty universal. If it said, "no unreasonable law" then it might be different. If it said, some laws, we could work with this. "No law" means not a single one. The stadium you speak of is public property not private. If its cowboy's stadium, it's a different discussion. But this is a public building. So "no law" is the rule we should be governed by.

I am not comfortable with guns in RRS. But I am also not comfortable with the idea that recruiting is a big argument for infringing on rights.

[PorkRinds]

All of this griping is over nothing.  They'll cave and allow the exemption to stand.

Let's hope so.

[PorkRinds]

My opinion of the second ammendment is that it says, "the government shall make no law..."

No law. Is pretty universal. If it said, "no unreasonable law" then it might be different. If it said, some laws, we could work with this. "No law" means not a single one. The stadium you speak of is public property not private. If its cowboy's stadium, it's a different discussion. But this is a public building. So "no law" is the rule we should be governed by.

I am not comfortable with guns in RRS. But I am also not comfortable with the idea that recruiting is a big argument for infringing on rights.

Problem with that argument is that it's not actually true. Government makes laws about the right to own and carry guns all the time. And most people support reasonable laws in regard to guns. Even Scalia, the conservative court Jesus, agreed there can be restrictions. Something tells me you don't really support unrestricted access to firearms which is what you've suggested.

[DeltaBoy]

VOTE yes and keep guns out of Sports.

[cityhog]

This is all fascinating. It is interesting that the majority assumption is that we will all turn into Yosemite Sam once the law is enacted. Right or wrong that is where I think the opposition is coming from. I don't think we would all lose our minds, however I don't think they should be allowed in the stadium. Not because of safety, but property rights. If a university doesn't want them on campus, then they should not be there. They have that right, just as much as I do on my own property. On the other hand, the ARLEG should not have laws prohibiting the rights of gun owners either. It should pass laws freeing us to self-govern on this. Unfortunately, I think we have been conditioned to depend on government to tell us what to do.

I don't think we'll turn into Yosemite Sam. I just think the perception on a national level will be Razorback venues are not safe places, ergo, the NCAA (and possibly the SEC) will 'punish' us for making this a very public law. I find it as distasteful for us to 'depend on the government to tell us what to do' as much as I find it distasteful for us to rely on a "NRA grade to tell us who we should vote for'.

[jneal56]

First, guns aren't illegal in Chicago.

Second, the Wild West was dangerous--very.  That's what made it wild.  There's a reason it wasn't the Mild West or the Safe West.  That's why towns started enacting ordinances against open carry.  They'd seen those saloon shootouts and arguments turned violent, and they didn't like the results. 

Laws are broken by upstanding people all the time--been speeding lately?  The courts are full of otherwise decent people making occasional lapses in judgement.  A lapse in judgement on this score can cost someone--maybe a lot of someones--their life. 

We don't have a problem right now with violence in the stadium that needs armed spectators as a solution.  This is nothing but the good idea fairy at work--a solution desperately seeking a problem.

You are correct and I should have been more clear when I said guns are illegal.

To legally possess firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, which is issued by the Illinois State Police to any qualified applicant. Non-residents who may legally possess firearms in their home state are exempt from this requirement.

When you say there is a reason why "they" called it the Wild West. Who are you referring to? The writers? The movie producers?

I do my best not to speed but sometimes when you are declining in speed from 55 to 45, you may be at 46 or 47 by the time you pass the sign so yes that would mean I would be speeding. Congratulations you caught me. Turn me in and get your attaboy.

We don't have a problem with violence at the games? So you're saying that the fights that tend to break out between two idiots are not a problem nor classified as violence?

Now to clear some things up. My personal opinion is I don't want ANY firearms at the games. None at all. Unless they physically search every person entering that stadium, that will not happen. There is always one person who will feel the need to bring their pea shooter. I don't understand why they feel that need but the fact is, there will always be one at least. 70,000 people I would be there is more than one. Legally or illegally.

This will not have an effect on Razorback Sports unless we have a crappy season. Bring guns to the stadium and we win the NT somehow, you think it's still a detriment to our program? No sir. Wins and Losses. That's it. We have some of the best facilities in the nation, our players are graduating at rates higher than most of the schools that are ahead of us in recruiting rankings. Our players tend to not get into trouble as much as other schools. All these are factors that effect recruiting right? Well then how come Alabama has the best recruiting classes? Because they win. That's it. They win. They win. They win. Every once in a while, they lose a game. Explain why we can be so great in all those areas that parents are so concerned about but still so low in recruiting?

[hoghiker]

Should we be concerned that what should be a discussion of rights afforded by the constitution is taking a back seat to how it might effect a sports team? I love my hogs. But given the choice between protection from unreasonable search and seizure and hogs winning in sports, I take the protections.

Maybe they'll let all you guys in a well regulated militia sit in one section just in case the Feds start some funny business.

[hogcard1964]

Problem with that argument is that it's not actually true. Government makes laws about the right to own and carry guns all the time. And most people support reasonable laws in regard to guns. Even Scalia, the conservative court Jesus, agreed there can be restrictions. Something tells me you don't really support unrestricted access to firearms which is what you've suggested.

+1000

People rely far too much on government to make decisions for them.  They're in every aspect of your life...  even what you put into your own body, what you do in your bedroom, marriage and death.

[hogcard1964]

Maybe they'll let all you guys in a well regulated militia sit in one section just in case the Feds start some funny business.

Are they on the 50 or up the student section?  Can we make those the equivalent of like the Broyles-Matthews Platinum tix?

[jneal56]

You obviously trust a CCP person to be able to take the shot in that circumstance. We will have to agree to disagree on that.

Since this board is about Razorback sports and we are talking about allowing CCP to be allowed in DWRRS and other Razorback sporting events, that's why you have to take football into the equation. Arkansas struggles to recruit the players Bama, LSU, Georgia, etc recruit year after year.

This issue is bigger than you give it credit for because of perception. People don't believe a person like you or me.

Sitting here right now, no I don't trust anyone to take a shot anywhere. Now during a moment of an active shooter and a CC draws their gun, yes I'm going to be screaming at them to shoot the person. It's the same concept as no atheist in a fox hole. Plain and simple.

So you're saying that recruiting would only suffer here because we are Little ole Arkansas and not at Alabama because they are Alabama? Why do you think that? Is it because they win? If they were not winning for the past few years do you think your perception would change on that issue? I like to think that it would.

Your last statement is 100% true. The media play into the entertainment factor all for the sake of dollar signs.

[theshiva]

The fact that there is even a vote on something as ridiculous as this doesn't cast a good light on our state.  God forbid this thing actually passes.

It is this type of legislation, and the fact that the NRA is pushing it, which really bothers me.  Why can't folks get together and have a reasoned discussion about common sense gun control?  Why does the NRA have to support all of these nonsense proposals?

Because past discussions of "common sense gun laws" and "compromise" only ended up with gun owners losing rights. I don't blame the NRA for changing strategies and just fight for every gun right they can.

That said I'm not a fan of having firearms in the stadium.

[hog of steele]

Problem with that argument is that it's not actually true. Government makes laws about the right to own and carry guns all the time. And most people support reasonable laws in regard to guns. Even Scalia, the conservative court Jesus, agreed there can be restrictions. Something tells me you don't really support unrestricted access to firearms which is what you've suggested.

Your defense of violating rights is that the governement arlready does it. Not an actual defense.

[PorkRinds]

Your defense of violating rights is that the governement arlready does it. Not an actual defense.

My defense is that it's not actually violating rights.  It's limiting them, which has been allowed since the constitution was written.

[hog of steele]

My defense is that it's not actually violating rights.  It's limiting them, which has been allowed since the constitution was written.

If you can find language in "no law" that allows a law according to the constitution, I will change my mind. Your rights have been violated in the past is not justification for doing it in the future.

[cityhog]

Because past discussions of "common sense gun laws" and "compromise" only ended up with gun owners losing rights. I don't blame the NRA for changing strategies and just fight for every gun right they can.

That said I'm not a fan of having firearms in the stadium.

I'm admittedly NOT well versed in the gun owners' rights narrative, but what rights have gun owners lost? I know recently that those on terror watch list and mentally ill people were granted the right to bear and purchase arms, but, and I'm being totally ignorantly earnest here, what rights have been taken away from average gun owners?

[sw403]

There will never be a reasoned discussion involving guns because most people don't understand guns nor how to use them so they want them gone.

[Hogwild]

Why would we loose NCAA baseball, track and gymnastic regionals?

I don't think we could.  NOT that I agree with the law, it is stupid to bring guns into a college stadium/arena.

But those regionals are merit based. While Mississippi, South Carolina, and North Carolina all face or have faced NCAA bans, they never applied to merit based regionals. South Carolina, Clemson, Ole Miss, and Miss State have all hosted regionals since the state ban went into effect.  This biggest issue is how the SEC would respond.

[sw403]

How many stabbings and beatings happen at RRS?  I have never seen violence at the games I have been to, so why would there be if people had guns that you couldn't see?

[hogcard1964]

How many stabbings and beatings happen at RRS?  I have never seen violence at the games I have been to, so why would there be if people had guns that you couldn't see?

It's going to turn into British football.

[Hogwild]

My opinion of the second ammendment is that it says, "the government shall make no law..."

No law. Is pretty universal. If it said, "no unreasonable law" then it might be different. If it said, some laws, we could work with this. "No law" means not a single one. The stadium you speak of is public property not private. If its cowboy's stadium, it's a different discussion. But this is a public building. So "no law" is the rule we should be governed by.

I am not comfortable with guns in RRS. But I am also not comfortable with the idea that recruiting is a big argument for infringing on rights.

That is your opinion, but it is not a fact.  The words "no law" is no where in the 2nd amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

No one is infringing on their right to own a gun, but you can make law on where said person can bring their guns.