of     1   

HershB
#209506347Saturday, February 11, 2017 6:38 PM GMT

If this bill passes: Any property owner may open fire against a trespasser if they know that the trespasser has a weapon in their hands or inventory and fail to leave the property after 3 warnings given by the property owner.
Mr_Barron
#209508107Saturday, February 11, 2017 7:04 PM GMT

Isn't this already the case? Aye if it's not.
T0bayas
#209516335Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:52 PM GMT

Aye
Matthew_Castellan
#209559451Sunday, February 12, 2017 5:09 AM GMT

This is just restricting to what people already do. If someone steps on your property, you have the right to shoot them.
Youtube910
#209599938Sunday, February 12, 2017 6:05 PM GMT

Aye
TimGeithner
#209661184Monday, February 13, 2017 4:44 AM GMT

Need I remind this council that you cannot constitutionally pass laws?
AnimatedDannyo
#209662123Monday, February 13, 2017 4:55 AM GMT

It seems that the LVCC has already forgotten our ruling so soon! United States v. Las Vegas, 2 U.S. 5 (2017) ᗩᘉᓰᗰᗩ☂ᕮↁᗪᗩᘉᘉϒ〇
AnimatedDannyo
#209662172Monday, February 13, 2017 4:55 AM GMT

"If someone steps on your property, you have the right to shoot them." what kind of world to people think we live in ᗩᘉᓰᗰᗩ☂ᕮↁᗪᗩᘉᘉϒ〇
Mr_Barron
#209666178Monday, February 13, 2017 5:53 AM GMT

It seems that the justices forgot Congress gave limited law-making powers to LVCC.
AnimatedDannyo
#209672403Monday, February 13, 2017 7:36 AM GMT

It seems that you forgot that the constitution > acts of congress! ᗩᘉᓰᗰᗩ☂ᕮↁᗪᗩᘉᘉϒ〇
KillYourMasters
#209785852Tuesday, February 14, 2017 10:18 PM GMT

Nay due to AnimatedDannyo's reasoning.
Mr_Barron
#209871877Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:57 AM GMT

It seems that you forgot that you have to go through the process again to nullify our powers. Oh wait, but this time we have congressional approval. This means we have a constitutional reasoning on this bill.
Mr_Barron
#209872720Thursday, February 16, 2017 4:09 AM GMT

Necessary and Proper Clause makes that bill constitutional.
AnimatedDannyo
#209879397Thursday, February 16, 2017 6:56 AM GMT

ignorant councillors. there's an ongoing case against the act and therefore the court decided to stay the provisions of it until the case is completed. ᗩᘉᓰᗰᗩ☂ᕮↁᗪᗩᘉᘉϒ〇
Mr_Barron
#209889439Thursday, February 16, 2017 1:11 PM GMT

I change my vote to nay, unconstitutional designated by Supreme Court.
AnimatedDannyo
#209927565Friday, February 17, 2017 1:31 AM GMT

"I change my vote to nay, unconstitutional designated by Supreme Court." another ignorant post disregarding everything i said. i said the act was stayed by the supreme court and the case regarding its unconstitutionality is still ongoing. it's going to be heard by the court this sunday. ᗩᘉᓰᗰᗩ☂ᕮↁᗪᗩᘉᘉϒ〇
Mr_Barron
#209935840Friday, February 17, 2017 3:48 AM GMT

I apologize, did you not want me to switch my vote? I realize the case is ongoing, but previously, it was unanimously voted in favor of the United States. My reasoning derives from that.
AnimatedDannyo
#209943130Friday, February 17, 2017 7:06 AM GMT

no that's not what i was implying. ## point was if you read what i said you would've understood that nothing was struck down; it was stayed. ᗩᘉᓰᗰᗩ☂ᕮↁᗪᗩᘉᘉϒ〇
Mr_Barron
#209947896Friday, February 17, 2017 9:26 AM GMT

All these law bills are on hold anyway.

    of     1