185
The justices have a shootout.
Last one standing dictates verdict.
If he wasn't already a felon I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have broken any laws at all.
He also had a gun with the serial number removed. Also a felony.
Why do we need laws against standing next to golf courses with guns? It's already illegal to shoot the president.
He didn't shoot the president. He was just exercising his 2nd Amendment rights, you commie socialist!
Florida has a dumbass law where you can open carry while hunting and fishing. Dude could just say he was hunting anacondas or whatever they kill in Florida
A law allowing you to carry a gun while hunting, blasphemy!!!
Sorry, it's on the way to or from, should have been more clear. But also... Fishing?
Gators, sharks, snakes, panthers, snapping turtles, wild boar, FloridaMan...
Also, that's like the least insane thing about Florida. They banned open carry in public but allow permit-free(!) concealed carry. Most states allow open carry and require permits for concealed.
They don't have enough evidence to get an attempted assassination charge, let alone a conviction. So they want to throw other crimes at the guy.
Standing by or on a golf course carrying a loaded weapon in itself is not a crime, depending on various details, and the state.
I don't know if it was ever confirmed that he shot the gun.
Nope. Per CBS, He never had line of sight on Trump and never fired his weapon.
The Secret Service says the agent opened fire at the suspect, who "did not fire or get off any shots at our agent," according to acting director Ronald Rowe.
He probably didn't shoot becaue it is illegal to shoot a gun towards an ex-president.
Nah, he was protecting the president from gators.
This is one of those things where things probably need to get worse before a constitutional amendment would be proposed and passed, unfortunately. I mean is even the serial number requirement constitutional based on that supreme court ruling?
The problem i see as a gun owner is that the longer sensible gun education, sensible laws and sensible programs surrounding firearms aren't in place, the higher the chance of insane laws. Someone is going to "lose" and someone is going to "win" and it's become so emotionally charged that it won't end well for anyone.
A problem is that the gun lobby is against even those basic laws of requiring basic gun safety like gun storage and they have a huge influence. I would be fine to start to require those basics and see how much that improves it. It would be a step, possibly a large one, in safety.
The NRA used to teach gun safety, in schools. This was pushed out by antigun groups. So no it wasn't the gun lobby...look elsewhere
Also fuck the NRA
One small thing about this Originalist era we're in, at least it paves the way for historians to have a whole bunch of important expertise.
History? Sounds like something they teach at them librul brain washing institutions we call colleges. No way I trust those “experts” more than I trust my own feelings.
Politico - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Politico:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/21/supreme-court-gun-rights-trump-assassination-attempt-00180350
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
185 points (97.9% liked)
politics
18898 readers
3159 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS