Sankey?s Letter in the gun law.....

[Liverpooldawg]

There are not a lot of people drinking before and during their optometrist appointment. There are also not thousands of fans of rival optometrists crammed in close quarters in that office who are rabidly supporting their favorite Doc. It's not remotely the same situation. What happens when a drunk goes after a carrier with a cowbell? What happens if a drunk starts winning a fight with a carrier in a big way? I've just seen too much crap at games from otherwise responsible people. However you feel about this is beside the point though. I didn't start this thread to start a debate about gun rights. I started it to point out that if this bill passes as is then at the least we will play every SEC game on the road. I suspect most other teams and leagues would do the same to us. We very easily could get kicked out of the SEC and find that no one would take us or play us. THAT is the choice here. If you are cool with that then by all means support this bill.

And a point of order: Sankey wasnt talking about post season stuff like the NCAA, he was talking about regular season games. I kind of like having home games.

[starkvegasdawg]

There are not a lot of people drinking before and during their optometrist appointment. There are also not thousands of fans of rival optometrists crammed in close quarters in that office who are rabidly supporting their favorite Doc. It's not remotely the same situation. What happens when a drunk goes after a carrier with a cowbell? What happens if a drunk starts winning a fight with a carrier in a big way? I've just seen too much crap at games from otherwise responsible people. However you feel about this is beside the point though. I didn't start this thread to start a debate about gun rights. I started it to point out that if this bill passes as is then at the least we will play every SEC game on the road. I suspect most other teams and leagues would do the same to us. We very easily could get kicked out of the SEC and find that no one would take us or play us. THAT is the choice here. If you are cool with that then by all means support this bill.

Again, this bill changes no law. What you are opposed of has been legal for 7 years and nobody has been kicked out of the SEC. It is right now perfectly legal to bring a gun into DWS if you have an enhanced permit.

[Liverpooldawg]

It?s a very real risk I admit. And an enhanced carry license offers no legal or civil protection if you shoot an innocent person. We had that drilled into us in our class. Drawing a weapon is an act of absolute last resort because there?s no unpulling the trigger. But if put in that situation, I?d rather have the ability to try and protect my wife and children or someone else?s wife and kids instead of standing there helpless watching them die.

So if you are that scared why do you even want to go to a game? A piece of advice, don't go to Europe.

[Liverpooldawg]

Again, this bill changes no law. What you are opposed of has been legal for 7 years and nobody has been kicked out of the SEC. It is right now perfectly legal to bring a gun into DWS if you have an enhanced permit.

And it's also perfectly legal for MSU to set it's own rules and deny you entry. That's what this bill will change.

[starkvegasdawg]

And it's also perfectly legal for MSU to set it's own rules and deny you entry. That's what this bill will change.

You can?t set rules contrary to law. Can they decide to serve alcohol and make the drinking age 16?

[starkvegasdawg]

So if you are that scared why do you even want to go to a game? A piece of advice, don't go to Europe.

I didn?t say I?m scared and I?ve never carried in a game. I?m just saying it?s been legal since 2011.

[Liverpooldawg]

One more time and to the point: If you do not care whether MSU can play at home, or even play, then by all means support this bill. If you do care, then ask your legislator to amend the bill to allow stadiums and arenas, at least at the universities and colleges, to not allow guns. The SEC is serious, ask Arkansas. They provided for this exception in their law similar to this after the SEC sent them this same ultimatum. That's why I started this thread, to point out the choice we face.

[Liverpooldawg]

You can?t set rules contrary to law. Can they decide to serve alcohol and make the drinking age 16?

That's just it, setting that rule is not against the law.

[BeardoMSU]

Nah. Only winning by 26 at the moment.

Now it's 42....yikes

[Liverpooldawg]

I didn?t say I?m scared and I?ve never carried in a game. I?m just saying it?s been legal since 2011.

It's legal, but it is also against the rules and terms of your ticket you agreed to when you bought it. That IS also legal. You don't have aright to attend a game. You won't get arrested, but you will and should be denied entry.

[BrunswickDawg]

Your interpretation of Scalia?s opinion means you believe that law enforcement cannot carry in these areas as well? Correct?

This state law is simply saying that off duty enforcement and their citizen equivalents can carry in these places. You can?t have it both ways, and I?m still waiting f for someone to tell me the difference in a police office who gets off st 5 pm, from 4:59 pm to 5:01 pm? What changes so much about that person that they are now denied the ability to carry their firearm into an area 2 minutes before they could? This is the the law in its simplest form.

Dude. Just stop and please fix your bing or google. Jefferson and others wrote in depth about this very argument aside from constitution. They didn?t even develop the idea. The idea came from the John Locke?s, Adam Smith?s and other great philosophers before them, who believed we all had unalienable rights granted to us by being born in The image of God that no government could take away. That was the founding of our consorititiin and one of those God given human rights is the ability for one to defend themselves.

First - I was not implying that law enforcement couldn?t carry off duty. You are inserting your opinion into a factual statement - Scalia believed in limitations to the 2nd amendment that applied to types of guns that should be available to general citizens and the ability to exclude some classes from ownership (such as felons and the mentally ill). I didn?t draw any conclusions - I only pointed out how jntersting it is that the foremost conservative strict constitutionalist had that view.

Second, I?m well aware of Locke, Smith, and the basis of the thought behind different elements of the constitution - I?ve got 2 degrees in history with my masters in Colonial American history. Forgive me for not writing a dissertation on my message board post. My username isn?t Todd4State, so I try not to do that. Yes, self protection was part of the basis for the 2nd amendment - however read the amendment. It literally ties the need for self protection to the need of the government to raise a militia. Self defense and the common defense of the nation. My point is just as valid.

[starkvegasdawg]

That's just it, setting that rule is not against the law.

Yes it is. The AG has said MS law allows for carry in stadiums. It has been the law since 2011.

[Liverpooldawg]

First - I was not implying that law enforcement couldn?t carry off duty. You are inserting your opinion into a factual statement - Scalia believed in limitations to the 2nd amendment that applied to types of guns that should be available to general citizens and the ability to exclude some classes from ownership (such as felons and the mentally ill). I didn?t draw any conclusions - I only pointed out how jntersting it is that the foremost conservative strict constitutionalist had that view.

Second, I?m well aware of Locke, Smith, and the basis of the thought behind different elements of the constitution - I?ve got 2 degrees in history with my masters in Colonial American history. Forgive me for not writing a dissertation on my message board post. My username isn?t Todd4State, so I try not to do that. Yes, self protection was part of the basis for the 2nd amendment - however read the amendment. It literally ties the need for self protection to the need of the government to raise a militia. Self defense and the common defense of the nation. My point is just as valid.

I'm as conservative as Scalia, and I agree with his opinions on this.

[BeardoMSU]

First - I was not implying that law enforcement couldn?t carry off duty. You are inserting your opinion into a factual statement - Scalia believed in limitations to the 2nd amendment that applied to types of guns that should be available to general citizens and the ability to exclude some classes from ownership (such as felons and the mentally ill). I didn?t draw any conclusions - I only pointed out how jntersting it is that the foremost conservative strict constitutionalist had that view.

Second, I?m well aware of Locke, Smith, and the basis of the thought behind different elements of the constitution - I?ve got 2 degrees in history with my masters in Colonial American history. Forgive me for not writing a dissertation on my message board post. My username isn?t Todd4State, so I try not to do that. Yes, self protection was part of the basis for the 2nd amendment - however read the amendment. It literally ties the need for self protection to the need of the government to raise a militia. Self defense and the common defense of the nation. My point is just as valid.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BrunswickDawg again.

[Liverpooldawg]

Yes it is. The AG has said MS law allows for carry in stadiums. It has been the law since 2011.

It is, but it's also legal for a stadium to set its own rules against it. They won't arrest you and can't, but they can eject you from the stadium. It's not illegal to be a total jerk at a game either, but it it can get you thrown out. I almost got thrown out up at Oxford for throwing a cup when I was a student . That sure as heck ain't illegal, but it will get you thrown out. I may have missed my calling, I talked my way out of it like a public defender!) I even had a enhanced carry instructor tell me that individual venues can set their own rules, fairly recently. He knew what he was talking about. If t wasn't ok to deny entry then this bill would never have come up since that is EXACTLY what it is trying to change.

[Dawg61]

Similar stance was taken by Sankey towards Arkansas last year I believe. Arkansas just made it so you can't bring the guns into the stadiums. Issue was solved. Sankey isn't threatening kicking MSU/OM out he is warning us that other conferences won't travel here because of this rule. We should listen to him and follow Arkansas' lead on this same exact issue they already dealt with.

[Liverpooldawg]

One more time and to the point: If you do not care whether MSU can play at home, or even play, then by all means support this bill. If you do care, then ask your legislator to amend the bill to allow stadiums and arenas, at least at the universities and colleges, to not allow guns. The SEC is serious, ask Arkansas. They provided for this exception in their law similar to this after the SEC sent them this same ultimatum. That's why I started this thread, to point out the choice we face.

Still no takes in this I see. You can argue second amendment all you want, but the SEC can still kick us out or refuse to play in Mississippi if they want to. Mississippi law can't change that at all.

[Commercecomet24]

Now it's 42....yikes

48 point win, but dang we didn?t hit 100! Running suicides after the game for not breaking100 lol

[RocketDawg]

You can?t set rules contrary to law. Can they decide to serve alcohol and make the drinking age 16?

No, but they might as well since they look the other way. And openly allow "premium" seat to stock their lockers the day before a game.

[Liverpooldawg]

Similar stance was taken by Sankey towards Arkansas last year I believe. Arkansas just made it so you can't bring the guns into the stadiums. Issue was solved. Sankey isn't threatening kicking MSU/OM out he is warning us that other conferences won't travel here because of this rule. We should listen to him and follow Arkansas' lead on this same exact issue they already dealt with.

I agree that's all we need to do, but read the letter 61. He wasn't talking about other conferences, he was talking about SEC members refusing to play here. That is explicit in the letter. It also sounded like a veiled threat to our memebership, to me anyway.