Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
"Obama Makes Free Speech A Felony".
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="OllieFranz" data-source="post: 60318587" data-attributes="member: 194533"><p>So if the guy hiding in the closet did not have a gun, you'd be OK with it?</p><p></p><p>IIRC, about10-15 years ago, there was a fellow who'd broken into the private areas of Buckingham Palace several times while the Queen was in residence. On at least one of those occassions it was the Queen herself who was the first person to "catch" him. He was never violent, but does that mean that he or anyone else who is not armed and does not appear to be violent can just walk in?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But the law is quite clear what constitutes a restricted building: the homes of the President and Vice-President, a building in which someone with Secret Service protection is visiting, or a building in which a "special event of national significance" is due to occur. That seems clear enough. </p><p></p><p>Unless you mean that it does not specify exactly how far from the building the "grounds" extends. If that is your objection, then, yes, I agree that the law should be clearer. It should not allow whoever it is who designates a building "restricted" (and the law does not define who that is) to declare, for example, that the restricted "grounds" extend for a mile from the building in every direction</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="OllieFranz, post: 60318587, member: 194533"] So if the guy hiding in the closet did not have a gun, you'd be OK with it? IIRC, about10-15 years ago, there was a fellow who'd broken into the private areas of Buckingham Palace several times while the Queen was in residence. On at least one of those occassions it was the Queen herself who was the first person to "catch" him. He was never violent, but does that mean that he or anyone else who is not armed and does not appear to be violent can just walk in? But the law is quite clear what constitutes a restricted building: the homes of the President and Vice-President, a building in which someone with Secret Service protection is visiting, or a building in which a "special event of national significance" is due to occur. That seems clear enough. Unless you mean that it does not specify exactly how far from the building the "grounds" extends. If that is your objection, then, yes, I agree that the law should be clearer. It should not allow whoever it is who designates a building "restricted" (and the law does not define who that is) to declare, for example, that the restricted "grounds" extend for a mile from the building in every direction [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
"Obama Makes Free Speech A Felony".
Top
Bottom