Usually I have some insightful voice on topics Greg brings up. But I have nothing. That is because Greg already brought up the common sense observations that must be addressed. Why is it when you put government into a topic, suddenly everything goes stupid. From what I hear, there is a private security firm running the gates. But we can say they are there by way of the County of Ada. Why has ACSO not chimed in with regard to Greg’s valid concerns? If gangs needed guns, you just gave them a huge opportunity to acquire them by them watching who goes back to their car in Caldwell. And as Greg stated, the whole reason for concealed carry is for anonymity. I wonder if a civil rights violation has occurred in wanding with regard to unlawful searches which violates a person’s rights. What would be the damage of said search? As Greg stated, by publicly identifying you as carrying a weapon, you open yourself up to be attacked for someone to take out a threat. When we go through the gate are we required to identify whether we are wearing boxers or briefs? If not, they why are we required to identify to anyone we have a weapon? I think this is an easy win in court. However, I beg the question, why is such a concept even in existence. There is ZERO common sense in this practice and a great deal of harm can come out of it. And locking a firearm in your car could be argued in court to be unsafe with the owner held liable if harm comes from this practice of an unmonitored weapon not properly made safe. I would also argue if people have a right to carry a weapon, one does not get to attach ANYTHING to that right in regard to the practice of that right. NO WHERE does it state in the law one must be monitored as a condition of that right. SCANNING you for a weapon is NOT in the code. So I am going to argue there are civil rights violations in this practice.