Where a Redneck Jew, a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.
Having freedom of choice is a violation of Civil Rights?
Seriously, I can’t even begin to comprehend what kind of sick fucks in the administration are coming up with this stuff, and even more confounding are the Liberal idiots who being Pro-Choice, applaud this idiocy without even wasting one millisecond contemplating the irony.
Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Voltaire is missing a key point, which is that the “fools” in question here revere chains on YOU, not on themselves.
And what about the discrimination against people with legit disabilities who can’t breath with a mask on and have been banned from traveling by air and doing a lot of other social activities since the government and 99.9% of businesses don’t recognize ADA in these situations? Hypocrite Democraps!
Not to mention the amazing notion of a “civil rights” investigation to try to enforce a ban that disparately impacts black Americans. I suppose the Democrat/KKK party would think that’s just fine, they’ve been doing that since the 1800s.
A funny story:
A zillion years ago, when I was still active, Tennessee passed a law that allowed carry permit holders to carry in restaurants that served alcohol. This was a huge, huge deal at the time and there was a ton of back-and-forth and negotiating and this truly crazy law came out of it where you basically needed a flow chart and a cheat sheet to determine if it was legal for you to carry or not. It was still technically illegal to carry in a restaurant that had a liquor license, but if you had a permit you fell into this very narrow exemption as long as this giant list of criteria was met.
Well, the people who were very much against having to put up a sign to prevent people with carry permits from dining in their establishments sued, saying that the law was too confusing for normal people. One of their arguments was that there was no way for a diner to know if the restaurant actually had a liquor license in the first place, or if they were in compliance with their license. Yes, the restaurants’ lawyer actually argued that his clients were in brazen violation of other laws which meant that this law should be struck down.
The man made some very valid points, and the exemption was struck down by a judge in Nashville. The result of that ruling was that it was once again illegal for anyone to carry in a restaurant.
So what did the legislature do?
They immediately repealed the law that made it illegal for anyone to carry in a restaurant. No new law, just striking an old one from the books.
The restauranteurs were super mad, so they sued again. It went to the same judge, who threw it out saying (paraphrasing) “the total absence of a law can never be unconstitutional.”
So how could it be that not having a law is a civil rights violation?
I think the answer will come in the form of a new government agency:. Bureau of Equity Enforcement.
Not to be confused with the Office of Adult Oversight, which would have the job of pointing, laughing at, and belittling the truly stupid ideas and actions fountaining out of the various government branches these days.
(I suspect, sadly, the former has a much higher probability of being formed.)
From Texas Law Shield;
Instead, the laws that were passed are basically the creation or rewording of legal exceptions to criminal statutes. On top of that, these exceptions typically contain detailed, and often convoluted, legal restrictions as to who, how, and where firearms can be carried. Here are some examples:
In Tennessee, you cannot constitutional carry in a public park, but permit holders are free to do so.
In Missouri, license holders who carry in an establishment that sells liquor cannot be charged criminally for a first-time offense, while constitutional carriers can face a Class B misdemeanor.
In Texas, license holders who inadvertently take their guns to airport security are permitted to return the firearms to their parked car, while constitutional carriers can face immediate arrest.
The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act provides an explicit exception for permit holders, but not for constitutional carriers.
Interesting. So that gives me a second reason to get a NH permit even though NH is a Constitutional Carry state.
I wonder what they do in VT, which doesn’t have permits of any kind, not even for reciprocity purposes (as I understand it).
Everything I’ve read says it’s better to have a concealed license and not need it, than need it and not have it. From my understanding, most constitutional carry states don’t allow out of staters to carry, unless they have a license and the two states have reciprocal agreements. In Texas, the license/training class are cheap.
NH allows anyone (who meets Federal restrictions on owning a gun) to carry open or concealed. I don’t remember what Federal rules say about non-citizens owning guns (green card holders, for example), but if they can, NH says they can carry.
I’m pretty sure VT is similar in that Constitution Carry applies both to residents of the state and out of staters.
Just keep reciting the MiniTru mantra, and it all makes sense.
Prosecutors will use the same settled science as used in the witch trials.