TSA coming soon to a mall near you.....
Give a tyrant an inch and it will take a mile.
haha! Awesome!
TSA coming soon to a mall near you.....
Give a tyrant an inch and it will take a mile.
Before I jump to any concusions, and make wrongful assumptions of your post. Are you saying that if a child is born out of wedlock, that automatically dooms them to a life of crime and abandonment?
With over 60% of the yutes born out of wedlock what makes you think there are any "parents" around for them?
It dooms them from the start to a split family and most likely to never seeing their father. Thus when the subject is about getting parents involved, it is a problem when the father is in jail, dead or just gone.
Are you not aware that children from single parent homes are more likely to be involved in crimes?
Statistics on Father Absence : National Fatherhood Initaitive
It dooms them from the start to a split family and most likely to never seeing their father.
There is a vast difference between "more likely" and "doomed."
Our daughter was 5 and in our wedding when my wife and I got married.
I made this argument the other day. Circle Center is owned by the City of Indianapolis, and co-owned and developed by Simon Properties. The no firearms rules are a farce and a poor attempt at skirting the state preemption laws, even if they don't realize it.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and legal carry at Circle Center cannot be stopped.
IANAL.
Lol, no way that would ever happen, nor should it. Even if it is govt land, once it's been rented/leased by a private party, their private rules should apply.
Tell me, kind sir, where the public (city owned) and private (Simon owned) property are split, so I may walk with impunity and the protection of law within that building?
If you cannot, then private rules on public property do NOT trump the preemption laws.
35-47-11.1-4(10) makes it very clear that the property must be leased for an event for the rest of 11.1 to not apply. The building is not leased by Simon Properties.
Each individual store would have to decide to allow or not allow firearms, and even then, it's a suggestion and not a law just as if it were any other private or leased property.
Simon cannot enforce their blanket "rule" as they have in the past. I do remember one example here of a person who had left the mall and had already walked through the doors onto the public sidewalk when they were harassed (by IMPD or mall rent-a-cops, I don't remember which) for carrying in the mall.
But please, let's keep the Victim Disarmament Zone in place (even if it violates the law) because apparently it's worked so well that there aren't hoodlums and ignorant gang members running rampant through the property randomly shooting off rounds for some perceived tough-guy macho BS affront to their "manhood". The law abiding citizens carrying their legal firearms in their holsters for their self defense from those same peckerwoods is the problem.