The risk that concealed carry reciprocity poses to D.C

[Jhaydeno]

John Lott wrote a piece that provided a mapped out graphic that showed this. There's literally no places in the main areas of DC that one could legally carry even with a permit, since they are either federal buildings or GFZ's.

That will be the next court case: GFZ that are arbitrary and capricious in their discrimination against the 2nd Amendment.

It just was a case, and surprisingly, the courts in Illinois ruled that GFZ's around parks were an unnecessary burden on the citizens and the 2A right to bear arms outside of your property:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chica...story,amp.html

[GunLawyer001]

The Left only believes in allowing local government to "regulate as they think best for their own residents, who they know better than Washington" when it comes to Constitutional rights that they don't care about.

When it comes to forcing local bakers to bake gay wedding cakes, or excluding blacks or Jews or Arabs, or letting schools sort themselves out without regard to race, or expelling disruptive students and concentrating spending on the middle to smartest students who will create the jobs and wealth in the future (instead of spending half the funds on learning disabled kids who may be able to tie their own shoes someday, but will never found the next Microsoft), or spending more on boys' sports because nobody locally cares about girls' sports, or buying incandescent light bulbs, or letting people make their own machineguns, or driving over 55 (that one's been backtracked)....suddenly, the Beltway knows best.

I'm sure that local governments could come up with all sorts of reasons why the Civil Rights Act is a bad idea for their own voters, but that's tough, the Left likes it and it's the law of the land. So's the 2nd Amendment, being part of the Constitution if not much beloved by the snowflakes.

The right to bear arms is non-existent in New Jersey. That's intolerable, since nobody ever repealed the 2nd Amendment, and it was finally incorporated against the States with McDonald.

The right to an abortion appears nowhere in the Constitution, it was created by the USSC using magic words that bear no relation to reality. The right to bear arms is explicitly in the Constitution, and enumerated rights are NOT subject to "reasonable restrictions". Ask any lawyer, even the dumb ones.

[ideaman]

Why doesn't Prince Law or NRA take those with "standing" and run it up to the SCOTUS?

[Sgt.K]

Why doesn't Prince Law or NRA take those with "standing" and run it up to the SCOTUS?

$$$

[Yellowfin]

The Left only believes in allowing local government to "regulate as they think best for their own residents, who they know better than Washington" when it comes to Constitutional rights that they don't care about.

When it comes to forcing local bakers to bake gay wedding cakes, or excluding blacks or Jews or Arabs, or letting schools sort themselves out without regard to race, or expelling disruptive students and concentrating spending on the middle to smartest students who will create the jobs and wealth in the future (instead of spending half the funds on learning disabled kids who may be able to tie their own shoes someday, but will never found the next Microsoft), or spending more on boys' sports because nobody locally cares about girls' sports, or buying incandescent light bulbs, or letting people make their own machineguns, or driving over 55 (that one's been backtracked)....suddenly, the Beltway knows best.

I'm sure that local governments could come up with all sorts of reasons why the Civil Rights Act is a bad idea for their own voters, but that's tough, the Left likes it and it's the law of the land. So's the 2nd Amendment, being part of the Constitution if not much beloved by the snowflakes.

The right to bear arms is non-existent in New Jersey. That's intolerable, since nobody ever repealed the 2nd Amendment, and it was finally incorporated against the States with McDonald.

The right to an abortion appears nowhere in the Constitution, it was created by the USSC using magic words that bear no relation to reality. The right to bear arms is explicitly in the Constitution, and enumerated rights are NOT subject to "reasonable restrictions". Ask any lawyer, even the dumb ones.

Yet we still do not confront them openly on this. The Slaughterhouse Cases, Plessy v. Ferguson (only overturned pertaining to race--majority of the decision is still intact), US v. Carolene Products, and Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma are still be allowed to stand as "good" rulings allowing the 2nd, 3rd, and 9th Circuits weasel their way out of treating us honestly and striking down every one of CA, NY, NJ, MD, and MA's laws. They owe us justice yet we still accept being treated as an outcast race and shrug our shoulders saying aw shucks, what can you do.

[bill gray]

It seems to me that the antis believe in magic-but only in evil magic with no counterbalancing good magic. They believe that good people will go mad from contact with firearms and can go on a killing spree for no reason at any moment. Reminds me of "Reefer Madness." These good people have next to zero criminal record or known mental health issue involving violence and have passes the background check. But the antis' crystal ball says they are not to be trusted. Maybe they are projecting their barely contained blood lust on the good guys. Maybe being an anti should prevent them from ever owning a gun. (But they are antis so they will never apply. Catch 22 can be a good thing). Antis believe that an inanimate object like a gun will awake to an evil nature, jump out of the owner's holster, nightstand or closet and run around shooting at random people. They see no possibility of their car, swimming pool, steak knife or five gallon buckets of water becoming sentient and deliberately causing deaths, but all of those things kill more people accidentally and in criminal acts than firearms. (I exclude suicide and self defense).