Antigun

My wife and I recently had a date night. One of the places we went was to the Amway center to see comedian Gabriel Iglesias. When we entered the arena, we had to pass through magnetometers. I believe that this is illegal. Let me explain:

The Amway center is owned by the City of Orlando. They prohibit all weapons using this rule:

Although by state law, the City cannot regulate the admission of patrons with weapons, the vast majority of private event promoters who use the Amway Center do not allow patrons with weapons to be admitted to their events.

Every event that I have attended there has used those magnetometers. I sure would be interested in seeing the process for this. I am betting that there is a ‘standard contract’ that is signed that allows the city to hide behind this legal figleaf of claiming it is what the promoters want. Something like “sign here, this is our standard contract” and the contract has a clause in it that says “I promise not to allow anyone with weapons into my event.”

Why? Because Orlando is run by that fucking left wing asshole Buddy Dyer, who hasn’t seen a restriction on gun ownership that he doesn’t like. He has openly stated that he wants all guns to be illegal within the City of Orlando.

I also want to remind everyone that it is not illegal to enter this facility with a weapon. It is only illegal if they discover that you have a weapon, then ask you to leave, and you refuse. So I roll the dice and try anyway. Let’s just say that it is indeed possible to enter the Amway arena with weapons (plural) and not get caught.

A liberal who admits that he didn’t watch a single moment of the trial, and who admits that he knows nothing about criminal law, is full of opinions on the Rittenhouse case, and claims that it sets a bad precedent: That anyone can pick up a gun and declare that they can go a “police a protest.”

He goes on to claim that this is an assault on free speech, because people will be intimidated because people can “show up with a gun” to stifle protests.

He claims that a person shows up to a protest with a gun is guilty of manslaughter, because a reasonable person should know that “something bad can happen” as a result.

If you remember, there was quite a bit of disagreement on whether or not Baldwin was responsible for checking to ensure that the firearm he pointed at a staff member was safe, or if it was proper for him to accept another staff member’s word for it.

There are bloggers who insist that anyone who hasn’t made movies is unqualified to have an opinion. Perhaps Nicolas Cage has enough experience making movies for his opinion to matter. Cage explained that he believes it is an actor’s responsibility to be educated in the use of guns as part of their craft. Here is what he has to say on the matter:

You need to know how to fight. You’re going to do fight scenes. You need to know how to ride a motorcycle. You need to know how to use a stick shift and drive sports cars, and you do need to know how to use a gun. You do. You need to take the time to know what the procedure is. Those are part of the job profiles.

Nicolas Cage on the Baldwin ‘Rust’ shooting

Of course, we all know that rich and famous people follow a different set of rules from everyone else. For that reason, I don’t expect a rich, antigun movie star to be held legally accountable. Still, that doesn’t change his responsibility for what happened, even if he will never be held accountable.

Liberals want to erect a statue of Kyle Rittenhouse so they can tear it down.

The Santa Fe DA says this about Alec Baldwin:

“Guns don’t just go off. So whatever needs to happen to manipulate the firearm, he did that, and it was in his hands.”

Now I still think that Alec Baldwin has enough money and celebrity to get out of it. We all know that there are two sets of laws in this country: One for rich lefties, and one for the rest of us. That doesn’t mean that the law wasn’t broken, just that he will use connections to get out of it.

Slate is always good for seeing the left’s faulty opinions, and this article is no exception. My first thought when I read the headline: “The Supreme Court May Elevate the Second Amendment Above the First” was something along the lines of, “Oh, what fresh idiocy is this?”

The article begins by pointing out that there are numerous restrictions on the time, manner, and place of free speech. Examples include rules that a ensure that expression does not interfere with their normal use. Rallies interfere with picnics and family gatherings. Parades and picketing block traffic and access to homes and businesses. The author then asks if firearms prevent the public from use and enjoyment of public spaces before going on to say:

Individuals may be injured and even killed when firearms are misused, improperly handled, or even when they are used properly. Even when a gunshot strikes the intended target, others may still be injured because the bullet may pass through the target and injure someone else or because the presence of the gun and gunfire cause a panic.

This is flawed, because the mere possession of firearms do nothing of the sort, any more than mere possession of a bible, political literature, or other materials that some find offensive interfere with the public’s use of a space. What the author is doing is conflating possession with use. No one is saying that people should be permitted to fire weapons in the middle of the street. The above argument is nothing more than the tired, old “yelling fire in a crowded theater” argument.

The author goes on to say:

the plaintiffs are not demanding the right to merely carry the firearm; they are demanding the right to use the firearm for self-defense. Thus, the fundamental question is not whether the presence of firearms threatens public safety but whether their use threatens public safety. The answer should be obvious, and the lessons of First Amendment jurisprudence should apply.

I actually agree. You see, using a firearm for self defense means that the person using that firearm is doing so to protect his own (or another’s) life from the unlawful use of force from a person illegally using that force. Just as a judge may prevent me from yelling out and disturbing his courtroom, no judge would argue that I cannot yell out to warn the occupants that the building is on fire, or that there is a man about to strike the judge with an axe from behind.

The author actually goes on to make a great point, and one which I agree with in principle, but I am betting not in the way that he is intending:

According to the court, “the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is unconstitutional.” The same should be true for firearms, and, arguably, this is where New York’s law fails. The requirement that applicants must show “proper cause” may be insufficiently clear and objective, allowing officials to exercise an unconstitutional amount of discretion.

If the court adopts this approach, it will follow a clearly marked path that will force New York to reconsider its standards for restricting guns in public, but allow it to still maintain some such standards. If the public forum doctrine is good enough for those seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights, it should be good enough for those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights as well.

My agreement here is that they should be permitted to require permits for concealed carry, as long as those permits are issued under clear, and unbiased criteria. I would accept shall issue- that is, anyone who completes a reasonable safety course and is not a prohibited person shall be issued a permit.

I am betting that isn’t what the author is thinking.