Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
SAF and Cal Guns seek to derail open carry lawsuit in Tennessee.
Bad facts make bad law.
SayUncle » Embody v. Ward
Bad facts make bad law.
SayUncle » Embody v. Ward
I'm not sure what it is, but I thought painting a real firearm muzzle orange was a violation of law? Is it not? Maybe only in some states?
The Feds require certain toys to have "orange" tips.
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
No mention of real firearms.
I don't think Indiana has any rules on this at all.
Well that's bass ackward, given the premise of orange tips for toys and all.
We get your point.Well that's bass ackward, given the premise of orange tips for toys and all.
We get your point.
Still waiting for the cries of outrage against the SAF for interfering with a Constitutional right.
I'll wait here.
It should seem equally obvious that not every portion of every park would be an appropriate place to possess a handgun, let alone an AK-47, for self-defense.
If the gun was legal, and by all appearances it was, it doesn't matter what color or what accessories it had on it, it was legal. Doesn't matter how people "feel" about it.Nonetheless, barring extenuating circumstances, park-goers who object to law-abiding, responsible Americans carrying handguns for self-defense in an ordinary manner should accommodate themselves to the traditional right to bear arms enjoyed by their neighbors. The Constitution sets out certain rights for protection precisely because their exercise may prove offensive to some who would suppress them.
What fine line?
He actually had the right (and correct) theme in the brief, but he may as well have dropped it into a footnote, from the very same passage that I quoted earlier.
If the gun was legal, and by all appearances it was, it doesn't matter what color or what accessories it had on it, it was legal. Doesn't matter how people "feel" about it.
To borrow one of your own rhetorical flourishes it doesn't matter how outraged the patrons of that park may have been that a black man was present, he had every right to be there.
THAT should have been part of the amicus brief.
BTW, anybody know what ethnicity Embody is?
I would guess redneck, but that's just me.
The real question should be was his intent to exercise his rights or to commit a crime (i.e. intmidation). The fact that you are scared of guns doesn't negate another's right to bear them anymoreso than if you removed guns and inserted dogs or fire or clowns.
Anyone who thinks that the SAF has been for the open/unlicensed carry of firearms they should now realize that is not the case.