• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Second Amendment Foundation will not defend legally carried firearms at protests

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...-defend-the-presence-of-firearms-at-protests/

Thanks! Next make it unlawful for citizens to "be armed in a gathering". Wait a minute didn't we...


So I came across this post and have to respectfully push back on the comments I've read up to this point. This "opinion" piece from the Blaze was lazy journalism in my opinion. This is another example of click bait media at its finest where many misleading headlines get taken for the truth without further reading.

The context of what Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation was quoted as saying was totally misrepresented by the writer. The part in the Washington Times piece was completely left out where Gottlieb said the SAF would "...consider legal involvement" for people being arrested who were legally carrying at demonstrations. The Blaze writer failed to mention that part.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/22/gun-rights-groups-concerned-over-protestors-carryi/

The SAF is a great organization who have been involved in some of the countries most important 2A legal issues over many years. Pro Second Amendment issues don't win in court by themselves. It takes a lot of money and time to move forward our agenda and preserve our rights as gun owners. Just ask people in California and elsewhere. Many people fail or neglect to remember that at times in my opinion.
 
So I came across this post and have to respectfully push back on the comments I've read up to this point. This "opinion" piece from the Blaze was lazy journalism in my opinion. This is another example of click bait media at its finest where many misleading headlines get taken for the truth without further reading.

The context of what Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation was quoted as saying was totally misrepresented by the writer. The part in the Washington Times piece was completely left out where Gottlieb said the SAF would "...consider legal involvement" for people being arrested who were legally carrying at demonstrations. The Blaze writer failed to mention that part.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/22/gun-rights-groups-concerned-over-protestors-carryi/

The SAF is a great organization who have been involved in some of the countries most important 2A legal issues over many years. Pro Second Amendment issues don't win in court by themselves. It takes a lot of money and time to move forward our agenda and preserve our rights as gun owners. Just ask people in California and elsewhere. Many people fail or neglect to remember that at times in my opinion.

I clicked over and read the WT piece as well, and it doesn't change anything. "Consider" means just that - consider, and that's all he should've said. But his first comment was the problem. I was already suspect of SAF because of their support for the Manchin-Toomey bill. Now this confirms they are weak on 2A.
 
^^^^ What's wrong with the fed creating a a backdoor firearm registry?

Well Jim says-

upload_2017-8-30_7-15-8.png


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...u-should-support-the-manchin-toomey-gun-bill/

An appeaser is the last one eaten...
 
Sometimes how you exercise one right will affect how much you can legally pursue OTHER rights.

Being visibly armed and even waving your gun around during what you KNOW is a potentially-dangerous confrontation between protesters and hateful, violent counter-protesters can be over the line. It could, depending on the circumstances, cross from protected 1st and 2nd Amendment activity to unlawful assembly, disorderly conduct, breach of peace, etc. There are a number of state or local laws that could apply.

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously upheld convictions of persons who were part of armed gangs or private militia units formed without government approval or state supervision. Those decisions (U.S. v. Cruikshank; Presser v. Illinois) were technically decided on the legal issue of incorporation of the 2nd Amd to state and local governments, and that line of reasoning from them has been repudiated, if not explicitly overruled, by Heller and McDonald. But, the gist of the underlying criminal actions against these men were never questioned, and these cases have been cited may times by other courts for the basic proposition that even where the 2A applies, some gun control laws about carrying arms in public are still legitimate.

So, I think that if we from the political Right go too far in insisting that we have the "right" to brandish guns at political functions and protests were a physical fight with opponents is foreseeable, we have a great chance of prompting the legislature to reinstate the public gathering law, and courts will uphold it.
 
"Open carry" doesn't always mean a normal-looking pistol kept in a belt holster on your waist.
That's not so intimidating. How about long guns, held in your hands or slug across the front of your chest ready for instant use, often with one's hands in the firing positions and fingers poised over the triggers, just outside the trigger guard?



Communists carry guns to protest Trump:
http://tribunist.com/news/heavily-a...en-reporter-after-crashing-trump-rally-video/

Right Wing (christians??) surrounding an Islamic center in Phoenix, looking like they're about to invade it and kill the muslims:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/photos-2/

Phoenix anti-Islam.jpg
 
Stunts like the Black Panthers pulled 50 years ago (1967) doing "open carry" of rifles and shotguns in courthouses and other public buildings in California, prompted that state (and cities like Los Angeles) to pass stricter gun control laws, and such gun laws were championed by none other than Governor Ronald Reagan.

armed Panthers.jpeg


http://theweek.com/articles/582926/how-ronald-reagan-learned-love-gun-control
 
Back
Top Bottom