Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

2nd Amendment Thread


Muda69

Recommended Posts

3 Young Minnesotans Sue the State for Their Right To Bear Arms

https://reason.com/2021/06/09/3-young-minnesotans-sue-the-state-for-their-right-to-bear-arms/

Quote

Three young adults in Minnesota are fighting for recognition of their full rights as adult citizens of the United States by filing a lawsuit against Minnesota challenging its requirement that a person must be at least 21 years old to obtain a handgun permit. 

Under current Minnesota state law, carrying a handgun in public for the purpose of self-defense is illegal without a permit. And though 20-year-olds are considered old enough to vote, serve on a jury, hold public office, get married, and fight in the armed forces, Minnesota doesn't consider them old enough to be issued a handgun permit.

On June 7, Kristin Worth, 18, Austin Dye, 19, and Axel Anderson, 18, of Minnesota filed a lawsuit challenging this requirement. They're joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

"This is an action to uphold Plaintiffs' right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution," their complaint states. It cites District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own and carry firearms, and McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the court held that the right to bear arms is "among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty" and applies to laws passed by the states. 

The plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment applies to all adults, including those between the ages of 18 and 21, "who are considered adults for almost all purposes and certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights." These young adults are also entitled to exercise their First Amendment rights, the plaintiffs argue.

By requiring people to be at least 21 years old to obtain a handgun permit, "the State of Minnesota prohibits a certain class of law-abiding, responsible citizens—namely, adults who have reached the age of 18 but are not yet 21—from fully exercising the right to keep and bear arms," the complaint states. 

It goes on to include testimonies about why each of the three young Minnesotans challenging the law desire to carry a handgun for self-defense, and—in a seeming touch of whimsy—exactly which gun they would carry if they got a permit. 

Kristin Worth is from Mille Lacs, Minnesota. She works part-time as a manager and cashier of a grocery store and, as part of her job, often has to close up the store late at night and walk alone through the parking lot to her car. "Based on this general vulnerability and the prevalence of street crime, including sex offenses, in her immediate neighborhood of Milaca, Plaintiff Worth desires to carry a handgun for selfdefense," the complaint says. It notes that if Worth could legally carry, she would carry a Beretta 92x handgun.

The lawsuit is one of four recent lawsuits that the Firearms Policy Coalition has been involved with that challenge bans on adults under 21 carrying handguns. The other lawsuits were filed in Illinois, Georgia, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania. If one of these legal challenges succeeds, it might set a precedent that would overturn similar policies in states across the country. 

These challenges could also help bring recognition to the rising legal infantilization of young adults which has followed their cultural infantilization, with the legal minimum age for drinking, smoking, and other activities now raised to age 21.

Legal and cultural infantilization is right.   The right choice is simple:  If our society deems that 18 is the youngest age an American citizen can fight or die for his country then that should also be age an American citizen can drink, smoke, or carry a handgun.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
31 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

The dictionary picture for "insecure lunatic".

Really?  A former Marine that carries a weapon is an insecure lunatic?

27 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

My favorite comment from the Reddit thread about this photo-

 

Now that's funny right there - I don't care who you are......😅

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Were you listening to the Dude’s story Donnie? Then you have no frame or reference…..you’re like a small child who wonders into the middle of a movie……

And you are like a land whale who hid away from here for almost a year after Trump failed in his coup attempt.

2 hours ago, swordfish said:

Really?  A former Marine that carries a weapon is an insecure lunatic?

Yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2021 at 11:46 AM, DanteEstonia said:

The comment regarding her sanity was not derived from her race or her sex.

However - If SF had uttered your original statement, the racist/sexist moniker from the left would certainly apply - and don't deny it.

4 hours ago, Muda69 said:

What exactly makes Ms. Sears look "insane" in that photo, Dante?

 

Let me surmise - She's a BLACK, FEMALE, CONSERVATIVE, brandishing a firearm (that SF is sure she is licensed in the State of Virginia to carry)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Prosecution Had a Very Bad Day in the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

https://reason.com/2021/11/09/the-prosecution-had-a-very-bad-day-in-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial/

Quote

The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse—the 17-year-old who shot and killed two men and grievously injured a third during the riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake last summer—entered its second week on Monday. The prosecution called to the stand Gaige Grosskreutz, who was shot by Rittenhouse but survived.

This did not go as planned, as Grosskreutz was very effectively cross-examined by Rittenhouse's attorney, Corey Chirafisi. If anything, it seems likely that Grosskreutz's answer would tend to support Rittenhouse's contention that he acted in self-defense. Indeed, while the most anyone can do is speculate, there are good reasons to think the trial might culminate in an acquittal—a verdict that could cause a mass meltdown within the mainstream media and among Democratic politicians, who have already branded Rittenhouse a domestic terrorist.

Rittenhouse was 17 years old at the time of the shootings, and lived in Antioch, Illinois, a mile south of the Wisconsin border. On August 23, 2020, Kenosha police had shot Blake, a black man, during a confrontation with his girlfriend. Blake, who had a warrant out for his arrest on sexual assault charges, disobeyed police orders and instead walked over to his girlfriend's vehicle; police claimed they feared he was reaching for a weapon and opened fire. Blake survived the encounter, but was paralyzed.

Coming just a few weeks after the police killing of George Floyd,* the Blake incident generated mass protests and considerable violence in Kenosha, with protesters settings cars and buildings on fire. By the night of August 25, armed militia groups were patrolling the city in an attempt to stop the riots.

Rittenhouse ventured into Kenosha, armed with a medical kit and an AR-15 that had been acquired for him by a friend, since Rittenhouse was too young to buy it. His stated purpose was to defend small businesses that were under threat of arson and looting; he was eventually surrounded by protesters during a series of encounters. Video footage of the encounters showed Rittenhouse trying to move away from them, but after a warning shot was fired by another man, Rittenhouse turned back and engaged Joseph Rosenbaum, a protester who tried to grab his gun. Rittenhouse shot him four times, killing him.

Rittenhouse was then chased by protesters, tripped and fell, and was attacked by a man named Anthony Huber, who struck him with a skateboard. Rittenhouse shot and killed him as well. He then shot Grosskreutz, who was armed with a gun and moving toward him.

Rittenhouse was charged with reckless homicide, intentional homicide, and attempted homicide for the three shootings. His attorneys have argued that he acted in self-defense, and rationally feared for his life in each of the three instances.

Grosskreutz may have inadvertently made that argument more plausible for the jury. When cross-examined by the defense on Monday, he confirmed that Rittenhouse did not shoot him until after he had pointed his own handgun at Rittenhouse.

Grosskreutz admits that Kyle Rittenhouse shot and "vaporized" his bicep, only after he approached Rittenhouse while aiming a firearm at him. pic.twitter.com/zURqW2if8N

— John Curtis (@Johnmcurtis) November 8, 2021

 

"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him…that he fired, right?" asked Chirafisi.

"Correct," Grosskreutz replied.

Many in the media have focused the case against Rittenhouse on the fact that he foolishly chose to inject himself into a chaotic situation where trouble was assured: He didn't belong there, and thus he bears responsibility for the deaths. It's perfectly fine to scrutinize Rittenhouse's rationale, and to lay moral blame for what happened at his feet. But his self-defense claim has absolutely nothing to do with any of that—it is only about whether he reasonably believed he was in danger at the moment he fired those shots. Grosskreutz's testimony gives significant credence to Rittenhouse's contention that such a belief was valid.

It's impossible to say for certain how the trial will conclude, of course. But if Rittenhouse is acquitted, it will not necessarily be because the justice system is dead, but rather, because the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouses's actions were unreasonable at the moments they occurred.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2021 at 1:06 PM, swordfish said:

However - If SF had uttered your original statement, the racist/sexist moniker from the left would certainly apply - and don't deny it.

Let me surmise - She's a BLACK, FEMALE, CONSERVATIVE, brandishing a firearm (that SF is sure she is licensed in the State of Virginia to carry)

Nothing involving race is in this statement-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2021 at 1:10 PM, DanteEstonia said:

And you are like a land whale who hid away from here for almost a year after Trump failed in his coup attempt.

Yup.

1) Perhaps with age comes wisdom, the wisdom to realize that engaging with people like you is not a worthwhile exercise.

2) Coup attempt? How many people involved have been charge with treason, insurrection, or any of the scary words the media likes to throw around?

3) Perhaps your miserable attempts to bully me have driven me away?

4) Why wrestle with pigs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://nypost.com/2021/12/01/alec-baldwin-weeps-in-first-interview-since-rust-set-shooting/

Alec Baldwin is insisting he “didn’t pull the trigger” on the gun that killed a cinematographer and wounded the director on the New Mexico set of his film “Rust.”

In his first interview since the deadly Oct. 21 shooting, a tearful Baldwin told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos he has “no idea” how the live bullet ended up in the firearm.

“The trigger wasn’t pulled. I didn’t pull the trigger,” Baldwin said in a preview clip of the interview released on Wednesday.

“I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them, never,” he said.

Authorities have previously said Baldwin was holding the prop gun while rehearsing a scene at the Bonanza Creek Ranch near Santa Fe when it accidentally discharged.

Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed and director Joel Souza was injured after they were struck by the live round.

“Someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet that wasn’t even supposed to be on the property,” Baldwin said in the ABC interview, which is set to air in full on Thursday.

At one point during the hour-long interview, Baldwin could be seen sobbing and placing his head in his hands.

Asked if the film set shooting was the worst thing that has ever happened to him, the Hollywood star said, “Yes.”

Baldwin also paid tribute to the slain cinematographer, saying it “doesn’t seem real” that Hutchins is dead.

“I think back and I think of what could I have done?” Baldwin said. “She was someone who was loved by everyone who worked with [her] and liked by everyone who worked with [her], and admired…,” he said.

“I mean, even now I find it hard to believe that [she’s gone]. It doesn’t seem real to me.”

His interview comes after a new search warrant approved by a judge on Tuesday revealed the live round may have been left in the gun from a previous film production.

Investigators revealed the developments in the case as they sought permission to search PDQ Arm & Prop, LLC — an ammunition store in an Albuquerque strip mall that supplied the ill-fated Western with props.

No charges have been brought in the film set shooting, but authorities haven’t yet ruled them out.

Baldwin’s claims are in direct contrast with what Mamie Mitchell, the film’s script supervisor, stated in a lawsuit filed last month. She said the actor “intentionally … cocked and fired” the gun.

Baldwin’s full interview will air at 8 p.m. ET Thursday on ABC.

His wife, Hilaria Baldwin, said on social media that she has had difficulty talking to the couple’s children about the fatal shooting.

“I’ve had to have some conversations, explaining recent events to my oldest children recently,” she said in an Instagram story on Tuesday. “You can imagine how heart-wrenching it has been.”

Wait - How does Mr. Baldwin explain the gun discharging if he didn't pull the trigger.  Methinks he just figured out he may actually be charged here.....

"I didn't pull the trigger!"  Yet there he is on film.....

Yes, a tragic accident, but we're all pretty sure you pulled the trigger Skippy.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...