Carrying in PA casino - got response from the board

[ScotsGuards]

You would do so much better to not go to a casino in PA...period

You would be better off not to go to a casino....period! I'll not say more lest I get an infraction.

[PeteG]

I've seen equally compelling unilateral cases against totally innocent political figures. When he's convicted of a crime by an impartial jury, I'll believe it.

As for the idea that anyone going after illegal aliens from Mexico must have an anti-Mexican animus, that's kind of silly. . . .

Are you sure? Or will you just argue the jury was not "impartial?"

I have not seen so compelling a case against a political figure since Richard Nixon and his advisors were proven to obstruct justice in the 1970's. I regard the findings of several juries and an ethics panel to be quite persuasive; but even without those, the facts regarding this man's contempt for the law and its processes are so clear and overwehlming that only one with a very strong bias can discount them. It is way too convenient to disregard all that this man has done - and even admitted doing - just because nobody has yet literally convicted him of a crime.

As for the idea that anyone going after illegal aliens must have an anti-Mexcian animus, I never said that. Indeed, this is the first mention of such an "animus," and it comes from you.

I do not know whether Joe Arpria does or does not hate Mexicans, but I actually doubt he does. I don't think he cares one way or the other. What I am convinced of is: (1) he found the animus of conservative white voters in Maricopa County to be a very convenient political tool; and (2) he was and is willing to disregard the rule of law in order to exploit that tool.

If one actually cares about the law, one must be prepared to measure everyone by that same law. Playing the role of denier in the service of one's favorites actually serves nobody well.

[ImminentDanger]

One of the tools of actual (as opposed to imaginary) tyranny is to make so many laws that everyone violates at least some of them. This is how members of the "security apparatus" in many countries get rich: they charge to look the other way. Otherwise, if you appear to be a threat to them, or a potential threat, or a possible future potential threat, or if they want to show someone else who is a potential threat what could happen to them, it is a small matter to squash you.

I have no doubt one can today walk into a post office armed and get away with it - unless something goes wrong. Then, that individual is screwed.

The rule of law is a very, very good thing. It is also highly abstract and conceptual; it is very dependent upon what people believe and perceive. It is therefore fragile.

The rule of law is undermined both by governments which make so many things criminal without "specific intent" or based upon "status" that nobody knows what the law is, and everybody violates it (whether they know it or not), and by people who decide to ignore bad laws, rather than insist they be changed.

See Wikipedia - Soft Despotism

Think in terms of Death by a Million Cuts....

This is the reason to support 'Small Government' - that is, government (especially Federal, but also all government in general) that ONLY interferes in matters that are monumentally important - leaving most of life to be determined by the liberty of responsible self-determination as the founder's intended...

But in a society that fears personal liberty and devalues personal responsibility, it likewise denigrates self-determination as an evil, rather than a virtue, preferring rather that 'the village' make one's life decisions... and here originates many of the violations of our personal civil liberties...

Yet, we (with or without our consent) have elected a cadre of governmental rulers (at all levels) who embrace totalitarianism in the name of 'doing good' for the people they rule over - by thinking that 'making laws' is the job of THE PEOPLE'S representatives, they look at more and more of our lives for places where they can 'legislate' our behavior...

Promoting 'The Rule of Law' is fine, when 'The Law' that is ruling is based on the founding principles of maximum liberty and self-determination for all... but when 'The Law' that is ruling is based on totalitarianism, we have a right (and responsibility) to fight against those laws by whatever means are necessary to remove those laws or those who prefer totalitarianism....

See Wikipedia - Soft Tyranny

...

[PeteG]

Promoting 'The Rule of Law' is fine, when 'The Law' that is ruling is based on the founding principles of maximum liberty and self-determination for all... but when 'The Law' that is ruling is based on totalitarianism, we have a right (and responsibility) to fight against those laws by whatever means are necessary to remove those laws or those who prefer totalitarianism....

...

We don't disagree on the importance of the effective rule of law. You are only talking about what sort of substantive law you will respect, and what means you would use to get there.

One personal test I use to check and see how bad things are is whether I am nice to petty officials not out of good manners or respect for their office, but because I am afraid of what will happen to me if I am not. Think TSA officers at the airport.

As for fighting against totalitarianism, it's hard work. In most cases, you will be in the minority; the majority either having bought into whatever fantasy the bosses have sold or, at later stages, being too afraid to do anything but try and survive. You may find yourself trying to "save" people who think "the regime" is just dandy, and you are a [terrorist; progressive; troublemaker; crimnal; outside agitator; commie; Bolshevik; take-your-pick].

The sooner one begins to resist, the better the prospects for success.

[JonEMTP]

Hey - Serious question.

The Casino rules ONLY apply to the gaming area, right? Example: A facility that has a hotel attached?

[sjsufer]

From my understanding talking with some of the people working for the board, yes, but I haven't found any regulations or laws to reference to support it.

Hey - Serious question.

The Casino rules ONLY apply to the gaming area, right? Example: A facility that has a hotel attached?

[tl_3237]

Hey - Serious question.

The Casino rules ONLY apply to the gaming area, right? Example: A facility that has a hotel attached?

Pa code require that the casino licensee prohibit firearm possession within the licensed facility as defined by 058 Pa Code § 401a.3:

Licensed facility—

(i) The physical land-based location at which a licensed gaming entity is authorized to place and operate slot machines including the gaming floor, all restricted areas servicing slot operations, and food, beverage and retail outlets and other areas serving the gaming floor which are located either on or directly accessible from and adjacent to the gaming floor or the restricted areas servicing slot operations.

(ii) The term does not encompass areas or amenities exclusive to pari-mutuel activities, hotel activities including hotel rooms, catering or room service operations serving a hotel, convention, meeting and mutipurpose facilities, retail facilities, food and beverage outlets and other amenities and activities not located on or adjacent to the gaming floor, or related to slot machine gaming operations.

As such hotels are outside the Gaming Control Board regulations. Whether the owner/lessee of the hotel prohibits firearms in their own right as private property possessors is a individual decision.