GOP Rep Boebert allowed to concealed carry in DC— due to Roberts Court and Scalia

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but I'm unclear what the problem is. If someone breaks the law, let me know.

[Anonymous]

I think the problem is that Scalia and the conservative legal establishment rewrote 2nd Amendment law?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum

Boebert SHOULD be breaking the law. That would be the law that DC citizens OVERWHELMINGLLY wanted.

And Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy (i.e. the Federalist Society and their donors) took that law away from us.
They changed the law.
Made up a new law.

And that puts DC families at risk.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that Scalia and the conservative legal establishment rewrote 2nd Amendment law?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum

Boebert SHOULD be breaking the law. That would be the law that DC citizens OVERWHELMINGLLY wanted.

And Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy (i.e. the Federalist Society and their donors) took that law away from us.
They changed the law.
Made up a new law.

And that puts DC families at risk.

Seems pretty simple to me.

No.

DC's laws were unconstitutional. SCOTUS overturned it. That is the way our country works.
Boebert was able to get a concealed carry permit in DC. Not an easy feat. She must be qualified for the permit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, what happened is that DC lost the lawsuit and decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court. Instead they passed an extremely restrictive concealed handgun permit law. There has been no increase in crime since then, and certainly none related to lawfully carried guns. There have always been a huge number of people legally carrying concealed firearms in DC, mostly police and federal law enforcement, but also retired DC police who were uniquely privileged for decades. Even without DC’s current law, federal law allows retired and active law enforcement to carry firearms in DC. You may not think this one particular individual (who may be immune from arrest most of the time she is in DC anyway) is a suitable candidate but please don’t blame the Supreme Court. DC’s long-standing near prohibitive gun laws have never done anything except deprive decent people of the right to efficacious means of self defense.

Countries with near total bans on handguns, and guns in general, are safer. Trump and all the republicans keep mysteriously trying to prevent federal funds being used to actually study the evidence. I wonder why. Is it because we have over 30,000 gun deaths a year and every other day there is basically a mass shooting? Nah. They’re freedom loving patriots and this is 1884 and the Wild West and everyone should be strapped to protect their women from getting raped. Even though Japan and Norway and most other developed nations have restrictive gun laws and have like 0 gun deaths we should force cities and towns in the United States to allow guns so everyone can “protect” themselves. Also, ar-15s, with bump stocks, for hunting are definitely necessary and don’t indicate a small pen15. God

The idea that the United States, with its millions of guns, including all the guns in the hands of authorized agents of the State, will ever be gun free via the passage of some kind of magical legislation is simply fanciful. And if it ever were, it would only be for so long as it took the same people who import tons of illegal drugs to add firearms to their inventory. Japan has had restrictive weapons laws for centuries. The career criminals have all the guns they want.

Yes, it’s clear that the 2A/militia criminals have already stocked up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, what happened is that DC lost the lawsuit and decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court. Instead they passed an extremely restrictive concealed handgun permit law. There has been no increase in crime since then, and certainly none related to lawfully carried guns. There have always been a huge number of people legally carrying concealed firearms in DC, mostly police and federal law enforcement, but also retired DC police who were uniquely privileged for decades. Even without DC’s current law, federal law allows retired and active law enforcement to carry firearms in DC. You may not think this one particular individual (who may be immune from arrest most of the time she is in DC anyway) is a suitable candidate but please don’t blame the Supreme Court. DC’s long-standing near prohibitive gun laws have never done anything except deprive decent people of the right to efficacious means of self defense.

Countries with near total bans on handguns, and guns in general, are safer. Trump and all the republicans keep mysteriously trying to prevent federal funds being used to actually study the evidence. I wonder why. Is it because we have over 30,000 gun deaths a year and every other day there is basically a mass shooting? Nah. They’re freedom loving patriots and this is 1884 and the Wild West and everyone should be strapped to protect their women from getting raped. Even though Japan and Norway and most other developed nations have restrictive gun laws and have like 0 gun deaths we should force cities and towns in the United States to allow guns so everyone can “protect” themselves. Also, ar-15s, with bump stocks, for hunting are definitely necessary and don’t indicate a small pen15. God

The idea that the United States, with its millions of guns, including all the guns in the hands of authorized agents of the State, will ever be gun free via the passage of some kind of magical legislation is simply fanciful. And if it ever were, it would only be for so long as it took the same people who import tons of illegal drugs to add firearms to their inventory. Japan has had restrictive weapons laws for centuries. The career criminals have all the guns they want.

Yes, it’s clear that the 2A/militia criminals have already stocked up.

Actually, this past year showed a growth of first-time gun owners by 5 million.

https://www.nssf.org/first-time-gun-buyers-grow-to-nearly-5-million-in-2020/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t see how Heller doesn’t put my family at greater risk due to Boebert carrying here.

Unless you and your family physically attack her, I fail to see how you and your family are in any greater risk whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t see how Heller doesn’t put my family at greater risk due to Boebert carrying here.

Unless you and your family physically attack her, I fail to see how you and your family are in any greater risk whatsoever.

Agree.
What pp fails to understand is that concealed carry gun owners are NOT the ones going around shooting up the city. Any city.
I am not a concealed carry person - but I hope that if I am ever in a situation where my life is being risked by some crazy criminal that a permit holder is close by. And, where I live - there is a good chance that is the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you want her to have the ability to protect herself from the evil crazies out there?

Because OP would like to see her defenseless, and be attacked and possibly murdered by the people she calls “peaceful protesters”.

[Anonymous]

I guess it does not matter but this Scalia stuff is not right. The Heller case said an individual could have a gun in their home for self defense. That's all. The DC gun law was shot down in the court of appeals and DC decided not to go the the Supreme Court. Scalia and in fact no one on the court had anything to do with it. Heller is a very limited ruling. Just because we won does not mean we should turn into nutty Trump type people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess it does not matter but this Scalia stuff is not right. The Heller case said an individual could have a gun in their home for self defense. That's all. The DC gun law was shot down in the court of appeals and DC decided not to go the the Supreme Court. Scalia and in fact no one on the court had anything to do with it. Heller is a very limited ruling. Just because we won does not mean we should turn into nutty Trump type people.

You’re telling us that the Republican effort to flood the country with guns, Scalia, Koches (for votes), gun CEOs, NRA — this has nothing to do with gun crime? Come on.

Scalia and the other Republican judges in Heller said that DC couldn’t ban handguns. They *made that up*. It’s “unconstitutional” because Republicans made up a new part of the constitution.

And that allowed a demonstrably non-cautious woman to carry a gun secretly around the streets of DC.
That puts every family in DC at some higher level of risk. Period.

This stuff isn’t hard. Why do people have to make such specious arguments about it?

Republican. Gun. Policy. Endangers. DC. Citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:given her history, she's more likely to shoot or be shot by her husband than anyone else

Or give herself food poisoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it does not matter but this Scalia stuff is not right. The Heller case said an individual could have a gun in their home for self defense. That's all. The DC gun law was shot down in the court of appeals and DC decided not to go the the Supreme Court. Scalia and in fact no one on the court had anything to do with it. Heller is a very limited ruling. Just because we won does not mean we should turn into nutty Trump type people.

You’re telling us that the Republican effort to flood the country with guns, Scalia, Koches (for votes), gun CEOs, NRA — this has nothing to do with gun crime? Come on.

Scalia and the other Republican judges in Heller said that DC couldn’t ban handguns. They *made that up*. It’s “unconstitutional” because Republicans made up a new part of the constitution.

And that allowed a demonstrably non-cautious woman to carry a gun secretly around the streets of DC.
That puts every family in DC at some higher level of risk. Period.

This stuff isn’t hard. Why do people have to make such specious arguments about it?

Republican. Gun. Policy. Endangers. DC. Citizens.

This country has always been flooded with guns. Guns aren’t a new invention. They’ve existed for the entire history of settlement on this continent.

What’s new, is the acceptability and normalization of violence in our entertainment and popular culture, a tolerance in our court systems for violent criminals, and psychoactive mediations prescribed to so many as though they were TicTacs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it does not matter but this Scalia stuff is not right. The Heller case said an individual could have a gun in their home for self defense. That's all. The DC gun law was shot down in the court of appeals and DC decided not to go the the Supreme Court. Scalia and in fact no one on the court had anything to do with it. Heller is a very limited ruling. Just because we won does not mean we should turn into nutty Trump type people.

You’re telling us that the Republican effort to flood the country with guns, Scalia, Koches (for votes), gun CEOs, NRA — this has nothing to do with gun crime? Come on.

Scalia and the other Republican judges in Heller said that DC couldn’t ban handguns. They *made that up*. It’s “unconstitutional” because Republicans made up a new part of the constitution.

And that allowed a demonstrably non-cautious woman to carry a gun secretly around the streets of DC.
That puts every family in DC at some higher level of risk. Period.

This stuff isn’t hard. Why do people have to make such specious arguments about it?

Republican. Gun. Policy. Endangers. DC. Citizens.

This country has always been flooded with guns. Guns aren’t a new invention. They’ve existed for the entire history of settlement on this continent.

PP here. No any efforts recently have no impact on current crime. Gun crime is lower now than it has been in 40 years. Heller was a very limited court case was all I said. It could have been much broader.

There is no relationship between Heller and gun crime. None. No stats to even include that in the discussion.



What’s new, is the acceptability and normalization of violence in our entertainment and popular culture, a tolerance in our court systems for violent criminals, and psychoactive mediations prescribed to so many as though they were TicTacs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it does not matter but this Scalia stuff is not right. The Heller case said an individual could have a gun in their home for self defense. That's all. The DC gun law was shot down in the court of appeals and DC decided not to go the the Supreme Court. Scalia and in fact no one on the court had anything to do with it. Heller is a very limited ruling. Just because we won does not mean we should turn into nutty Trump type people.

You’re telling us that the Republican effort to flood the country with guns, Scalia, Koches (for votes), gun CEOs, NRA — this has nothing to do with gun crime? Come on.

Scalia and the other Republican judges in Heller said that DC couldn’t ban handguns. They *made that up*. It’s “unconstitutional” because Republicans made up a new part of the constitution.

And that allowed a demonstrably non-cautious woman to carry a gun secretly around the streets of DC.
That puts every family in DC at some higher level of risk. Period.

This stuff isn’t hard. Why do people have to make such specious arguments about it?

Republican. Gun. Policy. Endangers. DC. Citizens.

This country has always been flooded with guns. Guns aren’t a new invention. They’ve existed for the entire history of settlement on this continent.

What’s new, is the acceptability and normalization of violence in our entertainment and popular culture, a tolerance in our court systems for violent criminals, and psychoactive mediations prescribed to so many as though they were TicTacs.

That's just not true. It's a rightwing talking point, meant to excuse Republican oligarchs from their responsibility making our lives less safe.

What is the gun violence problem in America?

It's that gun identity politics gets votes for GOP billionaires.
That's why Koch and the Koch network oligarchs donate to the NRA.
It's why after a massacre of children at Sandy Hook, Republicans used the filibuster to block common-sense gun reform.

And Republicans lie to you about 'entertainment', 'popular culture', 'tolerance', 'medication' -- it's all a pack of lies. We are the LEAST tolerant Western country for that. Just a flat lie. Deception.
I don't know whether you're deceived, or you're one of the propagandists pushing the lies. In any case -- you're helping put DC residents at risk to benefit GOP right people politically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it does not matter but this Scalia stuff is not right. The Heller case said an individual could have a gun in their home for self defense. That's all. The DC gun law was shot down in the court of appeals and DC decided not to go the the Supreme Court. Scalia and in fact no one on the court had anything to do with it. Heller is a very limited ruling. Just because we won does not mean we should turn into nutty Trump type people.

You’re telling us that the Republican effort to flood the country with guns, Scalia, Koches (for votes), gun CEOs, NRA — this has nothing to do with gun crime? Come on.

Scalia and the other Republican judges in Heller said that DC couldn’t ban handguns. They *made that up*. It’s “unconstitutional” because Republicans made up a new part of the constitution.

And that allowed a demonstrably non-cautious woman to carry a gun secretly around the streets of DC.
That puts every family in DC at some higher level of risk. Period.

This stuff isn’t hard. Why do people have to make such specious arguments about it?

Republican. Gun. Policy. Endangers. DC. Citizens.

This country has always been flooded with guns. Guns aren’t a new invention. They’ve existed for the entire history of settlement on this continent.

What’s new, is the acceptability and normalization of violence in our entertainment and popular culture, a tolerance in our court systems for violent criminals, and psychoactive mediations prescribed to so many as though they were TicTacs.

That's just not true. It's a rightwing talking point, meant to excuse Republican oligarchs from their responsibility making our lives less safe.

What is the gun violence problem in America?

It's that gun identity politics gets votes for GOP billionaires.
That's why Koch and the Koch network oligarchs donate to the NRA.
It's why after a massacre of children at Sandy Hook, Republicans used the filibuster to block common-sense gun reform.

And Republicans lie to you about 'entertainment', 'popular culture', 'tolerance', 'medication' -- it's all a pack of lies. We are the LEAST tolerant Western country for that. Just a flat lie. Deception.
I don't know whether you're deceived, or you're one of the propagandists pushing the lies. In any case -- you're helping put DC residents at risk to benefit GOP right people politically.

Except there is demonstrative proof.

How many depictions of murder do our children see on TV and movies each year? How many R&B hit songs glorify violence? How many violent games are sold each year? These are all products of American entertainment culture. We invented this stuff. Right here. The rest of the world didn’t create it and foist it on us - WE created it. Similarly, examine the per capita rates of people who are prescribed SSRI’s or other psychoactive drugs in America compared to other countries. You cannot train children to grow up watching violence as entertainment, then put them on powerful medications, and expect that they won’t think violence is acceptable. Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge this blatantly obvious correlation?