Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

NodeBB

  1. Home
  2. Handbook Discussions
  3. SCOTUS, Shooting Crack Second Amendment

SCOTUS, Shooting Crack Second Amendment

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Handbook Discussions
handbook
1 Posts 1 Posters 1.3k Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • A Offline
    A Offline
    admin
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Two things collided this week in a way that should make every permit holder stop and think — because they can't both be true at the same time.

    "The administration that spent last week urging the Supreme Court to strike down Hawaii's carry restrictions spent this week arguing a lawful gun owner deserved to die for carrying at a protest."

    That's not a partisan shot — that's just the timeline. You can't file a brief defending public carry rights on Monday and then have your FBI director go on TV Friday to say a legally armed man had it coming. Pick a lane.

    FBI Director Kash Patel said on Fox News: "You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple."

    Except it's not that simple — and it's not Minnesota law. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the NRA, and GOA all called this out directly. When the groups that normally carry water for an administration are publicly correcting its top law enforcement official on basic firearms law, that's worth paying attention to. Especially if you carry and think your permit means something.

    University of Minnesota Law professor Megan Walsh, who specializes in the Second Amendment, put it plainly: "He was lawfully carrying a firearm, and that is not any license to kill someone."

    The weapon had already been removed before the shots were fired. Whatever you think about the broader circumstances, that's the detail that matters — and it should matter to anyone who carries daily, because the principle at stake is whether lawful carry itself can be used to justify force against you.

    The Wolford ruling this summer will likely extend Bruen further into everyday carry situations — stores, restaurants, parking lots. That's a real win on paper. But a legal right that gets you shot in the street for exercising it isn't much of a right.

    Here's what I want to know from folks who carry regularly: Has the Pretti situation changed how you think about carrying at public events — protests, rallies, anything with a law enforcement presence — even where it's clearly legal to do so?


    Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

    1 Reply Last reply
    0

    Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

    Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

    With your input, this post could be even better 💗

    Register Login
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes


    • Login

    • Don't have an account? Register

    • Login or register to search.
    Powered by NodeBB Contributors
    • First post
      Last post
    0
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • World
    • Users
    • Groups