| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:04:44 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 176,480 |
Do we have a gun rights violation here?
A couple routinely carry pistols. They are complying with state law,
holding both FOID cards and concealed carry permits. Note that my state
was one of the earliest states to require ID for firearms and the very
last to pass a law on requiring a permit for concealed carry. Concealed
carry was handled as stupidly as possible. Instead of making it an
amendment to FOID, applications are handled by a separate set of clerks
in the State Police administrative back office. There have been
criminals who have had one permit pulled but not the other and innocent
gun owners constructively denied due process because of processing
delays and errors.
Back to the couple. They joined the protest outside the ICE facility in >Broadview. ICE agents, from the roof, are routinely firing pepper balls
into the crowds of protestors. It's not necessarily to get them to back
away from gates, but as punishment. The pepper mist is making neighbors >miserable who have nothing to do with protests.
In this case, ICE was trying to widen the perimeter, probably to move >vehicles in and out.
As one of the protestors, the husband refused to back up. When an agent >shoved him, he shoved back. Now he's being held in detention. Why? The >concealed weapon. Neither he nor the wife were charged with federal gun >crimes and neither drew a weapon. Both are charged with resisting and >unlawful assault on a federal officer. The wife is out on bond. I don't >understand the light handed treatment for the wife.
Prosecutors are throwing the book at them. The judge was horrified that
a man, who lives in a bad neighborhood in Chicago, who routinely carries
a gun, would carry it while protesting.
Trump is using the fact that this couple was armed as part of his
rhetoric justifying the request for deployment of National Guard troops
to protect federal facilities because federal agents are in danger.
What gives?
Either firearms are to be carried as a routine of daily life by people
who aren't carrying, intending to commit a violent crime, or the
individual liberty protected as a civil right in the Second Amendment
has no meaning.
Why is the Trump administration not being hypocritical here by arguing
that the man is too dangerous for bond, and justifies troops? Why did
the magistrate go along with prosecutors that "dangerous because gun"
and not "dangerous because he committed a violent act with gun"?
I'm so confused.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/09/29/feds-charge-four-following-ice-protests-in-broadview-including-2-carrying-guns-with-lawful-permits