Wishful Thinking can lead to Anal Rape and Orange Rompers. (Not a 2A post)

Saw this posted somewhere under the heading “Does HR 38 invalidate magazine limits in handguns?”:

“A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section.”

I see this shit every time a new bill comes around. Why do people read shit that is not specifically there and immediately go for something they want? And the worst part is that if a legal experts explains why it is not the way they want it to be, they just huff and puff and ignore  the advice starting a countdown to the moment he needs to call home and ask for bail money.

Don’t be stupid and get under the Legal Wishful Thinking.

6 Replies to “Wishful Thinking can lead to Anal Rape and Orange Rompers. (Not a 2A post)”

  1. Answer: “No, stupid.”

    The intent of the wording is clearly to be “As long as you’re not breaking the law in any other ways, you can’t be arrested or detained for carrying the gun in a concealed manner.”

    There are no stupid questions, but that’s a stupid question.


  2. Then again… laws are usually written so as to be entirely incomprehensible to normal people, so it’s hard to blame people for thinking there’s something there that isn’t. (For that matter, laws are often written so that “experts” can’t agree what they say, either.)
    The other consideration is that anti-freedom laws are normally interpreted in ways that don’t agree at all with the text, so it’s hard to blame people for missing the fact that this sort of abuse applies ONLY to anti-freedom laws.


  3. No question is stupid the first time you ask it, and at least they are asking first. Accepting the answer is, of course, another matter.


  4. This came up with LEOSA, which is kinda the test bed for nationwide reciprocity. The original law, signed in 2004 by G.W. Bush, only addressed concealed carry and said nothing about either magazine or ammunition limitations. It was interpreted to mean that you can carry, for example, a Glock 17 in Massachusetts, but it has to have a 10-round magazine in it. The LEOSA Improvement Act of 2010, signed by Obama, and further modifications contained in the 2012 National Defense Appropriation Act, said that people covered by LEOSA could carry any ammunition not banned by FEDERAL law (which meant, basically, you can carry hollow-points in New Jersey), but did not address the mag limits. Personally, I would not want to be the test case. If the law passes and you want to carry in a 10-round state, buy 10-round magazines.
    I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve sat in enough courtrooms to know which side of the room I want to be on.



Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.