oh boy more domestic terrorism, i wonder if it’s a right winger aaaaaaaaagaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain
Yeah, but you gotta love that these people are so stupid they think they can just walk into federal buildings with a rifle as if they were the entire mob of January 6th insurrectionists.
Nah, has to be BLaMtifa. /s
When can we add conservatives to the terrorist watch list?
Just as SCOTUS was deciding a gun case across the street
The fact that they keep getting away with this means it’s already over
It’s always interesting that there is a right to bear arms but not here or there. Maybe the only place to bear arms is in the closet.
Based on pics it looks like a rifle that’s not legal in DC due to it having too many features, and probably the named/clone ban.
Being from Atlanta I presume the fellow did not take the 16 hour class to put in for a DC carry permit, which doesn’t let you open carry or carry on the mall.
That’s a felony for the firearm, carrying it, one for each bullet, and each magazine over 10 rounds.
Hopefully not in the classroom closet where all the children are hiding.
Well, you certainly aren’t going to be bothered by the police for an hour or two if it means they might get hurt.
The best place for bear arms is on a bear.
Or against a bear. You won’t win that fight without a gun.
Probably won’t win that fight with one either.
Bears are far from bullet proof. In grizzly country just remember your .45-70.
Same reason you can yell fire in the middle of a field but not in a movie theater.
That’s actually not true.
Semantics. You’re allowed to yell fire if there is a fire, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant’s speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.
Not 1-to-1, but yes, it’s already a limited-rights area.
Maybe not on a field either if it’s a soccer pitch midgame.
