Paulding County Administrative Building has removed screening

Discussion in 'Places Off-Limits' started by 00Dan, Jan 12, 2017.

  1. 00Dan

    00Dan Member

    175
    1
    18
    This past Tuesday, the Paulding County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution to remove the security screening at the Administrative building where they hold their meetings.

    Not sure when this goes into effect but its a good step forward.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017
  2. DonT

    DonT Deplorable bitter clinger.

    5,634
    246
    63
    That's great to hear. I need to introduce the Cobb County Board of Commissioners to the Paulding board and their wisdom.
     

  3. Circuits

    Circuits Member

    74
    6
    8
    Do they only screen during meetings?
     
  4. 00Dan

    00Dan Member

    175
    1
    18
    The building is the seat of county administration. Screening was always present.
     
  5. DonT

    DonT Deplorable bitter clinger.

    5,634
    246
    63
    Do you have a news story or other source that I could get the link to, on this change of policy?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017
  6. mountainpass

    mountainpass Under Scrutiny

    19,368
    29
    48
  7. mountainpass

    mountainpass Under Scrutiny

    19,368
    29
    48
    http://www.mdjonline.com/neighbor_n...cle_79549e58-d84d-11e6-9e1c-67f630341ca5.html

    wat?

    Edit: I've contacted the writer.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017
  8. mountainpass

    mountainpass Under Scrutiny

    19,368
    29
    48
    .....
     
  9. mountainpass

    mountainpass Under Scrutiny

    19,368
    29
    48
    Dan add "Voted to Remove Screening" to title please.
     
  10. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,387
    70
    48
    A "loophole" is NOT a provision of law that allows something. -sigh-
     
    MSgt G likes this.
  11. mountainpass

    mountainpass Under Scrutiny

    19,368
    29
    48
    http://www.mdjonline.com/neighbor_n...cle_2ea84b7a-d6a9-11e6-8d8a-076e7ba8b006.html

    The former chairman Mr Austin said it would cost $131,000 a year. Well it cost $501,000 a year. So $1.25 Million since July 2014 when they installed screening.

    FOR NOTHING!

    Edit: I misread the article. They only fund for 2 deputies but need 4. So if they only staffed 2 this entire time they spent about $667,000 in last 2 and half years.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017
  12. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,458
    508
    113
    Even the counties/cities that have screening cannot exclude pocket knives, so if they say "no weapons of any kind," they are violating the law.
     
  13. johnski

    johnski Well-Known Member

    1,669
    35
    48
    pocket knives up to 5", correct? Over 5 " if you have a Ga weapons carry license.
     
  14. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,458
    508
    113
    Only up to 5". Over 5" is a weapon, and is off limits in a government building with security screening, even with a GWL.
     
  15. DonT

    DonT Deplorable bitter clinger.

    5,634
    246
    63
    I had thought that 16-11-136 allowed courthouses and government buildings to be more restrictive on any knives with blades of any length, an exception to the preemption ordinance. So, what is the point of 16-11-136, then?
     
  16. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,458
    508
    113
    I'm always leery of questions of what the purpose of legislation is, because they imply that the statute will be interpreted according to its "purpose" and not its words. 16-11-136 says governments can regulate knives in government buildings. But enacted more recently is 16-11-173, which says that governments cannot regulate any weapons at all. As the Supreme Court told us in the Code Revision Commission case, that means 16-11-136 has been repealed.
     
  17. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    In Liberal parlance, any provision of enacted law that does not prohibit conduct the liberal disagrees with is a "loophole" e.g. private sales between people is a "gun show loophole).


    I agree and in the back of my mind, I suspect it's one of the 'intended consequences' of requiring an establishment to maintain and fund a security checkpoint. "You can have as many security checkpoints as you want for as long as you want; so long as you are willing to expend the funds to maintain them to our standards." Not many organizations really want to piss away their revenue for no apparent gain.
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    :lol: Come on, John, you know that only works when it is against us, not for us.
     
  19. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,458
    508
    113
    You laugh, but I fear that would be the case if this issue were litigated.
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    I would not laugh if it were not true. I share your fear.