This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may
issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what
they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at
their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on
them next time.
The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of
federal gun laws, starting with GCA68.
They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court
might agree.
Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax.
So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the
SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that
tax.
From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another
unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try
to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction
on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney
would file briefs fighting it.
Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the
constitution.
The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is
something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I
understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an
argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in
the decision and the dissent as to what that could be.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may
issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what
they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at
their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on
them next time.
The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of
federal gun laws, starting with GCA68.
They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court
might agree.
Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax.
So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the
SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that
tax.
From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another
unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try
to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction
on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney
would file briefs fighting it.
Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the
constitution.
The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is
something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I
understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an
argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in
the decision and the dissent as to what that could be.

I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the
dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of the shooters
in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may
issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what
they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at
their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on
them next time.
The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of
federal gun laws, starting with GCA68.
They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court
might agree.
Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax.
So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the
SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that
tax.
From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another
unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try
to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction
on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney
would file briefs fighting it.
Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the
constitution.
The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is
something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I
understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an
argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in
the decision and the dissent as to what that could be.

You don't seem to be stupid... you are stupid.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may
issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what
they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at
their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on
them next time.
The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of
federal gun laws, starting with GCA68.
They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court
might agree.
Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax.
So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the >>SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that
tax.
From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another >>unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try
to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction
on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney
would file briefs fighting it.
Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the
constitution.
The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is
something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I >>understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an
argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in
the decision and the dissent as to what that could be.

I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the
dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of the shooters
in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.

Nice to know that you're pro dead children. Fuck off.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may
issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what
they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at
their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on
them next time.
The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of
federal gun laws, starting with GCA68.
They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court
might agree.
Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax.
So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the >>SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that
tax.
From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another >>unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try
to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction
on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney
would file briefs fighting it.
Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the
constitution.
The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is
something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I >>understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an
argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in
the decision and the dissent as to what that could be.

I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the
dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of the shooters
in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.

I see this as a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting laws
in an emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,
expensive and intrusive. Then they will limit where your CCW works to
the point that you have to leave your gun home. (subways,
restaurants, bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suits
will go on and the lawyers will be rich.
OTOH my state is on the verge of "Constitutional carry". I still
won't carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in 25 years I
carried exactly once. That was an over reaction to a situation that
didn't merit it.
OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of legality but I got
out of there. I hate those situations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 02:07:46 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may
issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what >>>they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at
their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on >>>them next time.
The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of >>>federal gun laws, starting with GCA68.
They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court
might agree.
Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax.
So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the >>>SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that
tax.
From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another >>>unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try
to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction
on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney
would file briefs fighting it.
Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the >>>constitution.
The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is
something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I >>>understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an >>>argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in
the decision and the dissent as to what that could be.

I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the
dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of the shooters
in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.

I see this as a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting laws
in an emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,
expensive and intrusive. Then they will limit where your CCW works to
the point that you have to leave your gun home. (subways,
restaurants, bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suits
will go on and the lawyers will be rich.
OTOH my state is on the verge of "Constitutional carry". I still
won't carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in 25 years I
carried exactly once. That was an over reaction to a situation that
didn't merit it.
OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of legality but I got
out of there. I hate those situations.

I've started, but not in DC. I'm sure NY will make more laws, and I'm
pretty sure they'll get challenged.

I still wonder how many of the shooters had a CCW permit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may>>issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the

court and do what>>they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at>>their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on>>them next time. >>The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of>>federal
gun laws, starting with GCA68. >>They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court>>might agree. >>Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax. >>So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by

SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that>>tax. >>From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another>>unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try>>to enforce it on states with legal pot.

The feds have no jurisdiction>>on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney>>would file briefs fighting it. >>Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the>>constitution. >>The states can ban anything they want but
not the feds. That is>>something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I>>understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an>>argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in>>the decision and the
dissent as to what that could be. >> >> >>I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the>dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of the shooters>in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.I see this as
a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting lawsin an emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,expensive and intrusive. Then they will limit where your CCW works tothe point that you have to leave your gun home. (subways,restaurants,
bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suitswill go on and the lawyers will be rich. OTOH my state is on the verge of "Constitutional carry". I stillwon't carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in 25 years Icarried exactly once.
That was an over reaction to a situation thatdidn't merit it. OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of legality but I gotout of there. I hate those situations.

Fat Harry sends his so called wife off to work in that DC hellhole
every workday, without batting an eyelash. She's either very
brave or dumb as a fencepost.
--
lets go Brandon...


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 5:55:31 AM UTC-4, John H wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 02:07:46 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may
issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what >>>they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at >>>their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on >>>them next time.
The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of >>>federal gun laws, starting with GCA68.
They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court >>>might agree.
Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax.
So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the >>>SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that >>>tax.
From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another >>>unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try >>>to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction >>>on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney >>>would file briefs fighting it.
Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the >>>constitution.
The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is >>>something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I >>>understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an >>>argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in
the decision and the dissent as to what that could be.

I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the
dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of the shooters
in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.

I see this as a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting laws
in an emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,
expensive and intrusive. Then they will limit where your CCW works to
the point that you have to leave your gun home. (subways,
restaurants, bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suits
will go on and the lawyers will be rich.
OTOH my state is on the verge of "Constitutional carry". I still
won't carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in 25 years I >carried exactly once. That was an over reaction to a situation that
didn't merit it.
OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of legality but I got
out of there. I hate those situations.

I've started, but not in DC. I'm sure NY will make more laws, and I'm
pretty sure they'll get challenged.

I still wonder how many of the shooters had a CCW permit.

In one of the local elections, the liberal candidate ran ads saying the conservative incumbent "made it easier for criminals to carry guns".

Since the criminals aren't paying attention to any of the laws already on the books anyway, I'm left questioning how passing a new law
or rescinding an old, ineffective one can have any effect on the criminal's behavior.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 02:07:46 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>>>This will trickle down to most of the blue states that

have "may>>>issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what>>>they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at>>>their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on>>>them next time. >>>The case
I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of>>>federal gun laws, starting with GCA68. >>>They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court>>>might agree. >>>Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax.

So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the>>>SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that>>>tax. >>>From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another>>>unconstitutional law that would get

litigated as soon as the feds try>>>to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction>>>on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney>>>would file briefs fighting it. >>>Remember, when the feds banned alcohol,
they had to amend the>>>constitution. >>>The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is>>>something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I>>>understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an>>>argument
that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in>>>the decision and the dissent as to what that could be. >>> >>> >>>>I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the>>dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of
the shooters>>in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.>>I see this as a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting laws>in an emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,>expensive and intrusive. Then they will limit
where your CCW works to>the point that you have to leave your gun home. (subways,>restaurants, bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suits>will go on and the lawyers will be rich. >OTOH my state is on the verge of "Constitutional carry". I
still>won't carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in 25 years I>carried exactly once. That was an over reaction to a situation that>didn't merit it. >OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of legality but I got>out of there. I hate
those situations. I've started, but not in DC. I'm sure NY will make more laws, and I'mpretty sure they'll get challenged. I still wonder how many of the shooters had a CCW permit.

Is there a way to look it up online?
--
lets go Brandon...


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Keyser Söze <KeyserSöze@whitehouse.com> Wrote in message:r

On 6/24/22 8:35 AM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:> gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>This will trickle down to most of the

blue states that have "may>>issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what>>they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at>>their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on>>them next time.

The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of>>federal gun laws, starting with GCA68. >>They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court>>might agree. >>Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it

was a tax. >>So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the>>SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that>>tax. >>From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another>>unconstitutional law that would
get litigated as soon as the feds try>>to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction>>on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney>>would file briefs fighting it. >>Remember, when the feds banned alcohol,
they had to amend the>>constitution. >>The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is>>something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I>>understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an>>argument that
satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in>>the decision and the dissent as to what that could be. >> >> >>I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the>dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of the
shooters>in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.I see this as a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting lawsin an emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,expensive and intrusive. Then they will limit where
your CCW works tothe point that you have to leave your gun home. (subways,restaurants, bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suitswill go on and the lawyers will be rich. OTOH my state is on the verge of "Constitutional carry". I stillwon't
carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in 25 years Icarried exactly once. That was an over reaction to a situation thatdidn't merit it. OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of legality but I gotout of there. I hate those situations.> >
Fat Harry sends his so called wife off to work in that DC hellhole> every workday, without batting an eyelash. She's either very> brave or dumb as a fencepost.You really are incapable of getting anything right. My wife Metros downtown on those very
occasional days when she has to be downtown, and the Metro lets her off a half block and across the street from her office, which is in a very safe and highly patrolled part of the city. In all the years I've been going downtown, I've never had the
slightest problem with any street criminals. My wife is very brave and very smart, and you are neither.-- * I just want to find 11,780 votes... *

You are getting so easy to agitate, it's almost not worth
bothering with anymore. It used to be a challenge.

--
lets go Brandon...


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gNi8yNC8yMiA4OjM1IEFNLCBKdXN0YW4gT2hscGhhcnQgd3JvdGU6DQo+IGdmcmV0d2Vs bEBhb2wuY29tIFdyb3RlIGluIG1lc3NhZ2U6cg0KPj4gT24gVGh1LCAyMyBKdW4gMjAyMiAx OTozODoxNSAtMDQwMCwgSm9obiBIIDxqaGVycmluZ0Bjb3gubmV0PiB3cm90ZTo+T24gVGh1 LCAyMyBKdW4gMjAyMiAxODozNjowNSAtMDQwMCwgZ2ZyZXR3ZWxsQGFvbC5jb20gd3JvdGU6 Pj4+VGhpcyB3aWxsIHRyaWNrbGUgZG93biB0byBtb3N0IG9mIHRoZSBibHVlIHN0YXRlcyB0 aGF0IGhhdmUgIm1heT4+aXNzdWUiIENDVyBsYXdzLiBJIGFtIHN1cmUgdGhleSB3aWxsIHRy eSB0byBkZWZ5IHRoZSBjb3VydCBhbmQgZG8gd2hhdD4+dGhleSB3YW50LCBsaWtlIHRoZXkg ZGlkIHdpdGggSGVsbGVyIGFuZCBNY0RvbmFsZCBidXQgdGhleSBkbyBpdCBhdD4+dGhlaXIg b3duIHBlcmlsLiBUaGlzIGRvZXMgbm90IGxvb2sgbGlrZSBhIGNvdXJ0IHRoYXQgd2lsbCBn byBlYXN5IG9uPj50aGVtIG5leHQgdGltZS4gPj5UaGUgY2FzZSBJIGFtIHdhaXRpbmcgZm9y IGlzIG9uZSB0aGFuIGNoYWxsZW5nZXMgdGhlIHdob2xlIGlkZWEgb2Y+PmZlZGVyYWwgZ3Vu IGxhd3MsIHN0YXJ0aW5nIHdpdGggR0NBNjguID4+VGhleSBzZWVtIHRvIGJlIGNvbnRyYXJ5 IHRvIHRoZSA5dGggYW5kIDEwdGggYW1lbmRtZW50LiBUaGlzIGNvdXJ0Pj5taWdodCBhZ3Jl ZS4gPj5CZWFyIG9uIG1pbmQgTkZBMzQgKHRoZSBtYWNoaW5lIGd1biBsYXcpIHdhc24ndCBh IGJhbiwgaXQgd2FzIGEgdGF4LiA+PlNvIHdhcyB0aGUgTWFyaWh1YW5hIDxzaWM+IFRheCBB Y3Qgb2YgMTkzNywgc3Vic2VxdWVudGx5IHRvc3NlZCBieSB0aGU+PlNDT1RVUyBpbiB0aGUg NzBzIHNpbXBseSBiZWNhdXNlIHRoZXJlIHdhcyBubyBsZWdhbCB3YXkgdG8gcGF5IHRoYXQ+ PnRheC4gID4+RnJvbSB0aGF0IHdlIGdvdCBOaXhvbidzIGNvbnRyb2xsZWQgc3Vic3RhbmNl cyBhY3QsIGFub3RoZXI+PnVuY29uc3RpdHV0aW9uYWwgbGF3IHRoYXQgd291bGQgZ2V0IGxp dGlnYXRlZCBhcyBzb29uIGFzIHRoZSBmZWRzIHRyeT4+dG8gZW5mb3JjZSBpdCBvbiBzdGF0 ZXMgd2l0aCBsZWdhbCBwb3QuIFRoZSBmZWRzIGhhdmUgbm8ganVyaXNkaWN0aW9uPj5vbiBi dXNpbmVzcyB0aGF0IGRvZXNuJ3QgY3Jvc3Mgc3RhdGUgbGluZXMgYW5kIDQwIHN0YXRlJ3Mg YXR0b3JuZXk+PndvdWxkIGZpbGUgYnJpZWZzIGZpZ2h0aW5nIGl0LiA+PlJlbWVtYmVyLCB3 aGVuIHRoZSBmZWRzIGJhbm5lZCBhbGNvaG9sLCB0aGV5IGhhZCB0byBhbWVuZCB0aGU+PmNv bnN0aXR1dGlvbi4gID4+VGhlIHN0YXRlcyBjYW4gYmFuIGFueXRoaW5nIHRoZXkgd2FudCBi dXQgbm90IHRoZSBmZWRzLiBUaGF0IGlzPj5zb21ldGhpbmcgd2UgYXJlIGFib3V0IHRvIHNl ZSB3aXRoIGFib3J0aW9uLiBJIGRvbid0IGxpa2UgaXQgYnV0IEk+PnVuZGVyc3RhbmQgaXQg aXMgY29uc3RpdHV0aW9uYWwgdW50aWwgc29tZW9uZSBjYW4gY29tZSB1cCB3aXRoIGFuPj5h cmd1bWVudCB0aGF0IHNhdGlzZmllcyB0aGUgY291cnQuIFdlIG1heSBldmVuIGdldCBzb21l IGd1aWRhbmNlIGluPj50aGUgZGVjaXNpb24gYW5kIHRoZSBkaXNzZW50IGFzIHRvIHdoYXQg dGhhdCBjb3VsZCBiZS4gID4+ID4+ID4+SSBqdXN0IHdvbmRlciwgd2hlbiBJIGhlYXIgYWxs IHRoZSBsaWJlcmFscyBjb21wbGFpbmluZyBhYm91dCB0aGU+ZGFuZ2VycyBvZiBlYXNpbmcg dGhlIGNvbmNlYWxlZCBjYXJyeSByaWdodHMsIGhvdyBtYW55IG9mIHRoZSBzaG9vdGVycz5p biBDaGljYWdvLCBOZXcgWW9yaywgTEEsIGV0Yy4sIGhhZCBhIGNvbmNlYWxlZCBjYXJyeSBw ZXJtaXQuSSBzZWUgdGhpcyBhcyBhIHN5bWJvbGljIHZpY3RvcnkuLiBOZXcgWW9yayBpcyBh bHJlYWR5IGRyYWZ0aW5nIGxhd3NpbiBhbiBlbWVyZ2VuY3kgc2Vzc2lvbiB0aGF0IHdpbGwg bWFrZSB0aGUgQ0NXIHByb2Nlc3Mgb2Rpb3VzLGV4cGVuc2l2ZSBhbmQgaW50cnVzaXZlLiBU aGVuIHRoZXkgd2lsbCBsaW1pdCB3aGVyZSB5b3VyIENDVyB3b3JrcyB0b3RoZSBwb2ludCB0 aGF0IHlvdSBoYXZlIHRvIGxlYXZlIHlvdXIgZ3VuIGhvbWUuICAoc3Vid2F5cyxyZXN0YXVy YW50cywgYmFycywgcHVibGljIGJ1aWxkaW5ncywgdHJhaW4gc3RhdGlvbnMgZXRjKS4gVGhl IHN1aXRzd2lsbCBnbyBvbiBhbmQgdGhlIGxhd3llcnMgd2lsbCBiZSByaWNoLiBPVE9IIG15 IHN0YXRlIGlzIG9uIHRoZSB2ZXJnZSBvZiAiQ29uc3RpdHV0aW9uYWwgY2FycnkiLiAgSSBz dGlsbHdvbid0IGNhcnJ5IGEgZ3VuIG9wZW4gYnV0IEkgY291bGQuIEkgZG8gaGF2ZSBhIEND VyBhbmQgaW4gMjUgeWVhcnMgSWNhcnJpZWQgZXhhY3RseSBvbmNlLiBUaGF0IHdhcyBhbiBv dmVyIHJlYWN0aW9uIHRvIGEgc2l0dWF0aW9uIHRoYXRkaWRuJ3QgbWVyaXQgaXQuIE9UT0gg aW4gREMgSSBjYXJyaWVkIGEgbG90IGluIHZhcmlvdXMgZGVncmVlcyBvZiBsZWdhbGl0eSBi dXQgSSBnb3RvdXQgb2YgdGhlcmUuIEkgaGF0ZSB0aG9zZSBzaXR1YXRpb25zLg0KPiANCj4g RmF0IEhhcnJ5IHNlbmRzIGhpcyBzbyBjYWxsZWQgd2lmZSBvZmYgdG8gd29yayBpbiB0aGF0 IERDIGhlbGxob2xlDQo+ICAgZXZlcnkgd29ya2RheSwgd2l0aG91dCBiYXR0aW5nIGFuIGV5 ZWxhc2guIFNoZSdzIGVpdGhlciB2ZXJ5DQo+ICAgYnJhdmUgb3IgZHVtYiBhcyBhIGZlbmNl cG9zdC4NCg0KWW91IHJlYWxseSBhcmUgaW5jYXBhYmxlIG9mIGdldHRpbmcgYW55dGhpbmcg cmlnaHQuIE15IHdpZmUgTWV0cm9zIA0KZG93bnRvd24gb24gdGhvc2UgdmVyeSBvY2Nhc2lv bmFsIGRheXMgd2hlbiBzaGUgaGFzIHRvIGJlIGRvd250b3duLCBhbmQgDQp0aGUgTWV0cm8g bGV0cyBoZXIgb2ZmIGEgaGFsZiBibG9jayBhbmQgYWNyb3NzIHRoZSBzdHJlZXQgZnJvbSBo ZXIgDQpvZmZpY2UsIHdoaWNoIGlzIGluIGEgdmVyeSBzYWZlIGFuZCBoaWdobHkgcGF0cm9s bGVkIHBhcnQgb2YgdGhlIGNpdHkuIA0KSW4gYWxsIHRoZSB5ZWFycyBJJ3ZlIGJlZW4gZ29p bmcgZG93bnRvd24sIEkndmUgbmV2ZXIgaGFkIHRoZSBzbGlnaHRlc3QgDQpwcm9ibGVtIHdp dGggYW55IHN0cmVldCBjcmltaW5hbHMuIE15IHdpZmUgaXMgdmVyeSBicmF2ZSBhbmQgdmVy eSBzbWFydCwgDQphbmQgeW91IGFyZSBuZWl0aGVyLg0KDQotLSANCiogSSBqdXN0IHdhbnQg dG8gZmluZCAxMSw3ODAgdm90ZXMuLi4gKg0K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gNi8yNC8yMiAxMToxMSBBTSwgSnVzdGFuIE9obHBoYXJ0IHdyb3RlOg0KPiBLZXlzZXIg U8O2emUgPEtleXNlclPDg8K2emVAd2hpdGVob3VzZS5jb20+IFdyb3RlIGluIG1lc3NhZ2U6 cg0KPj4gT24gNi8yNC8yMiA4OjM1IEFNLCBKdXN0YW4gT2hscGhhcnQgd3JvdGU6PiBnZnJl dHdlbGxAYW9sLmNvbSBXcm90ZSBpbiBtZXNzYWdlOnI+PiBPbiBUaHUsIDIzIEp1biAyMDIy IDE5OjM4OjE1IC0wNDAwLCBKb2huIEggPGpoZXJyaW5nQGNveC5uZXQ+IHdyb3RlOj5PbiBU aHUsIDIzIEp1biAyMDIyIDE4OjM2OjA1IC0wNDAwLCBnZnJldHdlbGxAYW9sLmNvbSB3cm90 ZTo+Pj5UaGlzIHdpbGwgdHJpY2tsZSBkb3duIHRvIG1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGJsdWUgc3RhdGVz IHRoYXQgaGF2ZSAibWF5Pj5pc3N1ZSIgQ0NXIGxhd3MuIEkgYW0gc3VyZSB0aGV5IHdpbGwg dHJ5IHRvIGRlZnkgdGhlIGNvdXJ0IGFuZCBkbyB3aGF0Pj50aGV5IHdhbnQsIGxpa2UgdGhl eSBkaWQgd2l0aCBIZWxsZXIgYW5kIE1jRG9uYWxkIGJ1dCB0aGV5IGRvIGl0IGF0Pj50aGVp ciBvd24gcGVyaWwuIFRoaXMgZG9lcyBub3QgbG9vayBsaWtlIGEgY291cnQgdGhhdCB3aWxs IGdvIGVhc3kgb24+PnRoZW0gbmV4dCB0aW1lLiA+PlRoZSBjYXNlIEkgYW0gd2FpdGluZyBm b3IgaXMgb25lIHRoYW4gY2hhbGxlbmdlcyB0aGUgd2hvbGUgaWRlYSBvZj4+ZmVkZXJhbCBn dW4gbGF3cywgc3RhcnRpbmcgd2l0aCBHQ0E2OC4gPj5UaGV5IHNlZW0gdG8gYmUgY29udHJh cnkgdG8gdGhlIDl0aCBhbmQgMTB0aCBhbWVuZG1lbnQuIFRoaXMgY291cnQ+Pm1pZ2h0IGFn cmVlLiA+PkJlYXIgb24gbWluZCBORkEzNCAodGhlIG1hY2hpbmUgZ3VuIGxhdykgd2Fzbid0 IGEgYmFuLCBpdCB3YXMgYSB0YXguID4+U28gd2FzIHRoZSBNYXJpaHVhbmEgPHNpYz4gVGF4 IEFjdCBvZiAxOTM3LCBzdWJzZXF1ZW50bHkgdG9zc2VkIGJ5IHRoZT4+U0NPVFVTIGluIHRo ZSA3MHMgc2ltcGx5IGJlY2F1c2UgdGhlcmUgd2FzIG5vIGxlZ2FsIHdheSB0byBwYXkgdGhh dD4+dGF4LiAgPj5Gcm9tIHRoYXQgd2UgZ290IE5peG9uJ3MgY29udHJvbGxlZCBzdWJzdGFu Y2VzIGFjdCwgYW5vdGhlcj4+dW5jb25zdGl0dXRpb25hbCBsYXcgdGhhdCB3b3VsZCBnZXQg bGl0aWdhdGVkIGFzIHNvb24gYXMgdGhlIGZlZHMgdHJ5Pj50byBlbmZvcmNlIGl0IG9uIHN0 YXRlcyB3aXRoIGxlZ2FsIHBvdC4gVGhlIGZlZHMgaGF2ZSBubyBqdXJpc2RpY3Rpb24+Pm9u IGJ1c2luZXNzIHRoYXQgZG9lc24ndCBjcm9zcyBzdGF0ZSBsaW5lcyBhbmQgNDAgc3RhdGUn cyBhdHRvcm5leT4+d291bGQgZmlsZSBicmllZnMgZmlnaHRpbmcgaXQuID4+UmVtZW1iZXIs IHdoZW4gdGhlIGZlZHMgYmFubmVkIGFsY29ob2wsIHRoZXkgaGFkIHRvIGFtZW5kIHRoZT4+ Y29uc3RpdHV0aW9uLiAgPj5UaGUgc3RhdGVzIGNhbiBiYW4gYW55dGhpbmcgdGhleSB3YW50 IGJ1dCBub3QgdGhlIGZlZHMuIFRoYXQgaXM+PnNvbWV0aGluZyB3ZSBhcmUgYWJvdXQgdG8g c2VlIHdpdGggYWJvcnRpb24uIEkgZG9uJ3QgbGlrZSBpdCBidXQgST4+dW5kZXJzdGFuZCBp dCBpcyBjb25zdGl0dXRpb25hbCB1bnRpbCBzb21lb25lIGNhbiBjb21lIHVwIHdpdGggYW4+ PmFyZ3VtZW50IHRoYXQgc2F0aXNmaWVzIHRoZSBjb3VydC4gV2UgbWF5IGV2ZW4gZ2V0IHNv bWUgZ3VpZGFuY2UgaW4+PnRoZSBkZWNpc2lvbiBhbmQgdGhlIGRpc3NlbnQgYXMgdG8gd2hh dCB0aGF0IGNvdWxkIGJlLiAgPj4gPj4gPj5JIGp1c3Qgd29uZGVyLCB3aGVuIEkgaGVhciBh bGwgdGhlIGxpYmVyYWxzIGNvbXBsYWluaW5nIGFib3V0IHRoZT5kYW5nZXJzIG9mIGVhc2lu ZyB0aGUgY29uY2VhbGVkIGNhcnJ5IHJpZ2h0cywgaG93IG1hbnkgb2YgdGhlIHNob290ZXJz PmluIENoaWNhZ28sIE5ldyBZb3JrLCBMQSwgZXRjLiwgaGFkIGEgY29uY2VhbGVkIGNhcnJ5 IHBlcm1pdC5JIHNlZSB0aGlzIGFzIGEgc3ltYm9saWMgdmljdG9yeS4uIE5ldyBZb3JrIGlz IGFscmVhZHkgZHJhZnRpbmcgbGF3c2luIGFuIGVtZXJnZW5jeSBzZXNzaW9uIHRoYXQgd2ls bCBtYWtlIHRoZSBDQ1cgcHJvY2VzcyBvZGlvdXMsZXhwZW5zaXZlIGFuZCBpbnRydXNpdmUu IFRoZW4gdGhleSB3aWxsIGxpbWl0IHdoZXJlIHlvdXIgQ0NXIHdvcmtzIHRvdGhlIHBvaW50 IHRoYXQgeW91IGhhdmUgdG8gbGVhdmUgeW91ciBndW4gaG9tZS4gIChzdWJ3YXlzLHJlc3Rh dXJhbnRzLCBiYXJzLCBwdWJsaWMgYnVpbGRpbmdzLCB0cmFpbiBzdGF0aW9ucyBldGMpLiBU aGUgc3VpdHN3aWxsIGdvIG9uIGFuZCB0aGUgbGF3eWVycyB3aWxsIGJlIHJpY2guIE9UT0gg bXkgc3RhdGUgaXMgb24gdGhlIHZlcmdlIG9mICJDb25zdGl0dXRpb25hbCBjYXJyeSIuICBJ IHN0aWxsd29uJ3QgY2FycnkgYSBndW4gb3BlbiBidXQgSSBjb3VsZC4gSSBkbyBoYXZlIGEg Q0NXIGFuZCBpbiAyNSB5ZWFycyBJY2FycmllZCBleGFjdGx5IG9uY2UuIFRoYXQgd2FzIGFu IG92ZXIgcmVhY3Rpb24gdG8gYSBzaXR1YXRpb24gdGhhdGRpZG4ndCBtZXJpdCBpdC4gT1RP SCBpbiBEQyBJIGNhcnJpZWQgYSBsb3QgaW4gdmFyaW91cyBkZWdyZWVzIG9mIGxlZ2FsaXR5 IGJ1dCBJIGdvdG91dCBvZiB0aGVyZS4gSSBoYXRlIHRob3NlIHNpdHVhdGlvbnMuPiA+IEZh dCBIYXJyeSBzZW5kcyBoaXMgc28gY2FsbGVkIHdpZmUgb2ZmIHRvIHdvcmsgaW4gdGhhdCBE QyBoZWxsaG9sZT4gICBldmVyeSB3b3JrZGF5LCB3aXRob3V0IGJhdHRpbmcgYW4gZXllbGFz aC4gU2hlJ3MgZWl0aGVyIHZlcnk+ICAgYnJhdmUgb3IgZHVtYiBhcyBhIGZlbmNlcG9zdC5Z b3UgcmVhbGx5IGFyZSBpbmNhcGFibGUgb2YgZ2V0dGluZyBhbnl0aGluZyByaWdodC4gTXkg d2lmZSBNZXRyb3MgZG93bnRvd24gb24gdGhvc2UgdmVyeSBvY2Nhc2lvbmFsIGRheXMgd2hl biBzaGUgaGFzIHRvIGJlIGRvd250b3duLCBhbmQgdGhlIE1ldHJvIGxldHMgaGVyIG9mZiBh IGhhbGYgYmxvY2sgYW5kIGFjcm9zcyB0aGUgc3RyZWV0IGZyb20gaGVyIG9mZmljZSwgd2hp Y2ggaXMgaW4gYSB2ZXJ5IHNhZmUgYW5kIGhpZ2hseSBwYXRyb2xsZWQgcGFydCBvZiB0aGUg Y2l0eS4gSW4gYWxsIHRoZSB5ZWFycyBJJ3ZlIGJlZW4gZ29pbmcgZG93bnRvd24sIEkndmUg bmV2ZXIgaGFkIHRoZSBzbGlnaHRlc3QgcHJvYmxlbSB3aXRoIGFueSBzdHJlZXQgY3JpbWlu YWxzLiBNeSB3aWZlIGlzIHZlcnkgYnJhdmUgYW5kIHZlcnkgc21hcnQsIGFuZCB5b3UgYXJl IG5laXRoZXIuLS0gKiBJIGp1c3Qgd2FudCB0byBmaW5kIDExLDc4MCB2b3Rlcy4uLiAqDQo+ IA0KPiBZb3UgYXJlIGdldHRpbmcgc28gZWFzeSB0byBhZ2l0YXRlLCBpdCdzIGFsbW9zdCBu b3Qgd29ydGgNCj4gICBib3RoZXJpbmcgd2l0aCBhbnltb3JlLiBJdCB1c2VkIHRvIGJlIGEg Y2hhbGxlbmdlLg0KPiAgIA0KDQpZb3UgYXJlIG5vdCBhZ2l0YXRpbmcgbWUsIHNoaXQtZm9y LWJyYWlucywgeW91IGFyZSBqdXN0IHJlaW5mb3JjaW5nIG15IA0KYmVsaWVmIHlvdSBhcmUg ZHVtYmVyIGFuZCBtb3JlIGlnbm9yYW50IHRoYW4gYSBwb3N0Lg0KDQotLSANCiogSSBqdXN0 IHdhbnQgdG8gZmluZCAxMSw3ODAgdm90ZXMuLi4gKg0K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Keyser Söze <KeyserSöze@whitehouse.com> Wrote in message:r

On 6/24/22 11:11 AM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:> Keyser Söze <KeyserSöze@whitehouse.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 6/24/22 8:35 AM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:> gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net>

wrote:>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may>>issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what>>they want, like they did with Heller and
McDonald but they do it at>>their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on>>them next time. >>The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of>>federal gun laws, starting with GCA68. >>They seem to be contrary to
the 9th and 10th amendment. This court>>might agree. >>Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax. >>So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the>>SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way
to pay that>>tax. >>From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another>>unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try>>to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction>>on business that doesn't cross
state lines and 40 state's attorney>>would file briefs fighting it. >>Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the>>constitution. >>The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is>>something we are about to see with
abortion. I don't like it but I>>understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an>>argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in>>the decision and the dissent as to what that could be. >> >> >>I just wonder, when I
hear all the liberals complaining about the>dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of the shooters>in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.I see this as a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting lawsin an
emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,expensive and intrusive. Then they will limit where your CCW works tothe point that you have to leave your gun home. (subways,restaurants, bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suitswill
go on and the lawyers will be rich. OTOH my state is on the verge of "Constitutional carry". I stillwon't carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in 25 years Icarried exactly once. That was an over reaction to a situation thatdidn't merit it.
OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of legality but I gotout of there. I hate those situations.> > Fat Harry sends his so called wife off to work in that DC hellhole> every workday, without batting an eyelash. She's either very> brave or
dumb as a fencepost.You really are incapable of getting anything right. My wife Metros downtown on those very occasional days when she has to be downtown, and the Metro lets her off a half block and across the street from her office, which is in a very
safe and highly patrolled part of the city. In all the years I've been going downtown, I've never had the slightest problem with any street criminals. My wife is very brave and very smart, and you are neither.-- * I just want to find 11,780 votes... *> >
You are getting so easy to agitate, it's almost not worth> bothering with anymore. It used to be a challenge.> You are not agitating me, shit-for-brains, you are just reinforcing my belief you are dumber and more ignorant than a post.-- * I just want
to find 11,780 votes... *

Snerk! I can tell when Your shorts are twisted. You won't get me
to back and fourth endlessly with you. That's juvenile.
--
lets go Brandon...


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 08:36:30 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 02:07:46 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>>>This will trickle down to most of the blue states that

have "may>>>issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what>>>they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at>>>their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on>>>them next time. >>>The case
I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of>>>federal gun laws, starting with GCA68. >>>They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court>>>might agree. >>>Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax.

So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the>>>SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that>>>tax. >>>From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act,

another>>>unconstitutional

law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try>>>to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction>>>on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney>>>would file briefs fighting it. >>>Remember, when the feds

banned alcohol, they had to amend the>>>constitution. >>>The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is>>>something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I>>>understand it is constitutional until someone can come up
with an>>>argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in>>>the decision and the dissent as to what that could be. >>> >>> >>>>I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the>>dangers of easing the concealed carry
rights, how many of the shooters>>in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.>>I see this as a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting laws>in an emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,>expensive

and intrusive. Then they will limit where your CCW works to>the point that you have to leave your gun home. (subways,>restaurants, bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suits>will go on and the lawyers will be rich. >OTOH my state is on the

verge of "Constitutional carry". I still>won't carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in 25 years I>carried exactly once. That was an over reaction to a situation that>didn't merit it. >OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of
legality but I got>out of there. I hate those situations. I've started, but not in DC. I'm sure NY will make more laws, and I'mpretty sure they'll get challenged. I still wonder how many of the shooters had a CCW permit.

Is there a way to look it up online?

The Wash Post says at least 29 'mass shootings' by CCW permit holders
over the past 29 years.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 05:55:30 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 02:07:46 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may
issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what >>>>they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at >>>>their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on >>>>them next time.
The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of >>>>federal gun laws, starting with GCA68.
They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court >>>>might agree.
Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax.
So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the >>>>SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that >>>>tax.
From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another >>>>unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try >>>>to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction >>>>on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney >>>>would file briefs fighting it.
Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the >>>>constitution.
The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is >>>>something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I >>>>understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an >>>>argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in
the decision and the dissent as to what that could be.

I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the
dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of the shooters
in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.

I see this as a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting laws
in an emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,
expensive and intrusive. Then they will limit where your CCW works to
the point that you have to leave your gun home. (subways,
restaurants, bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suits
will go on and the lawyers will be rich.
OTOH my state is on the verge of "Constitutional carry". I still
won't carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in 25 years I >>carried exactly once. That was an over reaction to a situation that
didn't merit it.
OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of legality but I got
out of there. I hate those situations.

I've started, but not in DC. I'm sure NY will make more laws, and I'm
pretty sure they'll get challenged.

I still wonder how many of the shooters had a CCW permit.

Pretty much none of them. Certainly not the school shooters and that
is what really gets the most news. Talking about mass shooters and CCW
license holders in the same rant is just obfuscation.
Obviously licensed people are not the problem in our top murder
cities. They are where they have the bans the SCOTUS just overturned.
Those places don't need gun control, they need people control because
other crimes are raging too. They won't even try to enforce laws
against larceny, burglary and quality of life crimes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 05:37:27 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" <3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 5:55:31 AM UTC-4, John H wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 02:07:46 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may
issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what
they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at
their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on
them next time.
The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of
federal gun laws, starting with GCA68.
They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court
might agree.
Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax.
So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the
SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that
tax.
From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another
unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try
to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction
on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney
would file briefs fighting it.
Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the
constitution.
The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is
something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I
understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an
argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in
the decision and the dissent as to what that could be.

I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the
dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of the shooters
in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.

I see this as a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting laws
in an emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,
expensive and intrusive. Then they will limit where your CCW works to
the point that you have to leave your gun home. (subways,
restaurants, bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suits
will go on and the lawyers will be rich.
OTOH my state is on the verge of "Constitutional carry". I still
won't carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in 25 years I
carried exactly once. That was an over reaction to a situation that
didn't merit it.
OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of legality but I got
out of there. I hate those situations.

I've started, but not in DC. I'm sure NY will make more laws, and I'm
pretty sure they'll get challenged.

I still wonder how many of the shooters had a CCW permit.

In one of the local elections, the liberal candidate ran ads saying the conservative incumbent "made it easier for criminals to carry guns".

Since the criminals aren't paying attention to any of the laws already on the books anyway, I'm left questioning how passing a new law
or rescinding an old, ineffective one can have any effect on the criminal's behavior.

Felons are prohibited from having guns or ammunition by federal law
and most state's law. They certainly don't get a CCW.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:52:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
<KeyserSöze@whitehouse.com> wrote:

On 6/24/22 8:35 AM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>This will trickle down to most of the blue states that have "may>>issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the

court and do what>>they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at>>their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on>>them next time. >>The case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of>>federal gun laws, starting with GCA68. >>They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th
amendment. This court>>might agree. >>Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was a tax. >>So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the>>SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that>>tax. >>From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act, another>>
unconstitutional law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try>>to enforce it on
states

with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction>>on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney>>would file briefs fighting it. >>Remember, when the feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the>>constitution. >>The states can ban

anything they want but not the feds. That is>>something we are about to see with
abortion. I don't like it but I>>understand it is constitutional until someone can come up with an>>argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in>>the decision and the dissent as to what that could be. >> >> >>I just wonder, when I
hear all the liberals complaining about the>dangers of easing the concealed carry rights, how many of the shooters>in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.I see this as a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting lawsin an emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,expensive and intrusive.
Then they will limit where your CCW works tothe point that you have to leave your

gun home. (subways,restaurants, bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suitswill go on and the lawyers will be rich. OTOH my state is on the verge of "Constitutional carry". I stillwon't carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in

25 years Icarried exactly once. That was an over reaction to a situation thatdidn't merit it. OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of legality but I gotout of there. I hate those situations.

Fat Harry sends his so called wife off to work in that DC hellhole
every workday, without batting an eyelash. She's either very
brave or dumb as a fencepost.

You really are incapable of getting anything right. My wife Metros
downtown on those very occasional days when she has to be downtown, and
the Metro lets her off a half block and across the street from her
office, which is in a very safe and highly patrolled part of the city.
In all the years I've been going downtown, I've never had the slightest >problem with any street criminals. My wife is very brave and very smart,
and you are neither.

DC gets "exciting" at night. During the day, you are probably OK
anywhere downtown and most places downtown are fine until about 0230
when the rats come out. There are other places you are best off
avoiding. From what I hear, that is moving into PG and Monkey County
as the yuppies are "gentrifying" the poor people out of town.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 15:20:45 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 08:36:30 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart ><me@yourservice.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 02:07:46 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:38:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:36:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>>>This will trickle down to most of the blue states

that have "may>>>issue" CCW laws. I am sure they will try to defy the court and do what>>>they want, like they did with Heller and McDonald but they do it at>>>their own peril. This does not look like a court that will go easy on>>>them next time. >>>The
case I am waiting for is one than challenges the whole idea of>>>federal gun laws, starting with GCA68. >>>They seem to be contrary to the 9th and 10th amendment. This court>>>might agree. >>>Bear on mind NFA34 (the machine gun law) wasn't a ban, it was
a tax. >>>So was the Marihuana <sic> Tax Act of 1937, subsequently tossed by the>>>SCOTUS in the 70s simply because there was no legal way to pay that>>>tax. >>>From that we got Nixon's controlled substances act,

another>>>unconstitutional

law that would get litigated as soon as the feds try>>>to enforce it on states with legal pot. The feds have no jurisdiction>>>on business that doesn't cross state lines and 40 state's attorney>>>would file briefs fighting it. >>>Remember, when the

feds banned alcohol, they had to amend the>>>constitution. >>>The states can ban anything they want but not the feds. That is>>>something we are about to see with abortion. I don't like it but I>>>understand it is constitutional until someone can come
up with an>>>argument that satisfies the court. We may even get some guidance in>>>the decision and the dissent as to what that could be. >>> >>> >>>>I just wonder, when I hear all the liberals complaining about the>>dangers of easing the concealed
carry rights, how many of the shooters>>in Chicago, New York, LA, etc., had a concealed carry permit.>>I see this as a symbolic victory.. New York is already drafting laws>in an emergency session that will make the CCW process odious,>expensive

and intrusive. Then they will limit where your CCW works to>the point that you have to leave your gun home. (subways,>restaurants, bars, public buildings, train stations etc). The suits>will go on and the lawyers will be rich. >OTOH my state is on the

verge of "Constitutional carry". I still>won't carry a gun open but I could. I do have a CCW and in 25 years I>carried exactly once. That was an over reaction to a situation that>didn't merit it. >OTOH in DC I carried a lot in various degrees of
legality but I got>out of there. I hate those situations. I've started, but not in DC. I'm sure NY will make more laws, and I'mpretty sure they'll get challenged. I still wonder how many of the shooters had a CCW permit.

Is there a way to look it up online?

The Wash Post says at least 29 'mass shootings' by CCW permit holders
over the past 29 years.

Since most "mass shootings" are gunfights, (by the definition they
use) was the CCW the attacker or a victim?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)