You must log in or register to comment.
oh boy more domestic terrorism, i wonder if it's a right winger aaaaaaaaagaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain
Yeah, but you gotta love that these people are so stupid they think they can just walk into federal buildings with a rifle as if they were the entire mob of January 6th insurrectionists.
Nah, has to be BLaMtifa. /s
When can we add conservatives to the terrorist watch list?
Just as SCOTUS was deciding a gun case across the street
The fact that they keep getting away with this means it's already over
It’s always interesting that there is a right to bear arms but not here or there. Maybe the only place to bear arms is in the closet.
Based on pics it looks like a rifle that's not legal in DC due to it having too many features, and probably the named/clone ban.
Being from Atlanta I presume the fellow did not take the 16 hour class to put in for a DC carry permit, which doesn't let you open carry or carry on the mall.
That's a felony for the firearm, carrying it, one for each bullet, and each magazine over 10 rounds.
Removed by mod
You can see my reply to SeaJ which gives more context I think.
The area this person was in is already an area where your rights are severely curtailed. You can be searched at any time, for instance.
Tell that to the founders who were quite fine with them.
I actually fully expect many of these laws to be struck down, eventually, as they are pretty clearly in violation of the new tradition scrutiny brought on by Bruen. Heller is probably already gearing up for it lol.
What I expect to stay is stuff like the ban on the Federal areas like the mall, as it would likely fall under the "sensitive places" allowance. It will be interesting to see if the Washington DC ban on carry in any place that holds an alcohol license covers that, however.
Personally, I think that if you set up a gun-free zone you should actually fence/wall it off and have security to ensure it stays that way. All the federal areas that prohibit carry are already 2A and 4A free zones, so it's not really a stretch to move from "you may be searched at all times" to "you will be searched every time".
If we are to look at historical tradition, banning concealed and open carry would be okay, registration would be fine, regular inspection would be fair game, and requiring an oath to the government would be fine since all of those were common when the 2nd Amendment was passed. However, I don't expect the current Supreme Court to consider that aspect though since they clearly cherry picked tradition on abortion rights and referenced a Witch Trial juror to back up their view instead of someone more relevant like Ben Franklin who wrote about common abortifacients and how to use them.
Yeah the tradition scrutiny is concerning but there's not much to do about it.
It seems that strict scrutiny would still have been serviceable.
Hopefully not in the classroom closet where all the children are hiding.
Well, you certainly aren't going to be bothered by the police for an hour or two if it means they might get hurt.
The best place for bear arms is on a bear.
Or against a bear. You won't win that fight without a gun.
Probably won't win that fight with one either.
Bears are far from bullet proof. In grizzly country just remember your .45-70.
Bear mace has been shown time and time again to be more effective and safer for yourself and the bear.
Same reason you can yell fire in the middle of a field but not in a movie theater.
That's actually not true.
Semantics. You're allowed to yell fire if there is a fire, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
Not 1-to-1, but yes, it's already a limited-rights area.
Maybe not on a field either if it's a soccer pitch midgame.
deleted by creator
