- cross-posted to:
- guns@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- guns@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
“Vernikov, a Ukrainian immigrant who has been a staunch opponent of Palestinian rallies, posted a video of herself at the rally on X, formerly known as Twitter, claiming, “If you are here, standing today with these people, you’re nothing short of a terrorist without the bombs.””
Sounds like she went looking for trouble, maybe even for an excuse to use that gun.
She wanted to be the next Kyle Rittenhouse. Murdering and blaming it on provocation while using the negative sentiments of the protest to dodge accountability.
From the article: “At no point in time was anyone menaced or injured as a result of her possessing the firearm”
Given we know she did not threaten anyone. Why should she be arrested for exercising her rights?
You read that part, but ignored the part right before:
Although the councilwoman has a concealed carry permit, she violated the recently passed city law that prohibits civilians from bringing firearms to protests, the police said.
How fascinating. I’m guessing cops hated when BLM protestors were armed?
I specifically addressed that in my very first comment in this post, see https://lemmy.world/comment/4511632
This is such a beautiful example of cherry picking the bits you like. The answer to your question is literally the sentence right above the one you have surgically quoted:
"Although the councilwoman has a concealed carry permit, she violated the recently passed city law that prohibits civilians from bringing firearms to protests, the police said.
“At no point in time was anyone menaced or injured as a result of her possessing the firearm at the earlier protest,” the NYPD said in a statement."
I specifically addressed that in my very first comment in this post, see https://lemmy.world/comment/4511632
Right, but with different sorting, people don’t experience the same flow as you and might not see that first. So in this particular conversation thread, you’ve obfuscated a key part of the information and just ‘asked a question’ that is phrased in a way to spread misinformation
Read the article.
Because breaking an explicit law isn’t “exercising your rights.” It’s specifically and literally not a right.
She’s a Council member. She could have gotten a police escort with one phone call.
she violated the recently passed city law that prohibits civilians from bringing firearms to protests, the police said
At no point in time was anyone menaced or injured as a result of her possessing the firearm
Unless she was threatening someone (the article specifically claims she wasn’t), she will be acquitted. One does not have just one right at a time, one has all their rights all the time.
Cities can absolutely pass enforceable gun laws. She brought a firearm into a prohibited place, that’s not a right.
And concealed carry should be exactly that. If people can easily see it, that’s effectively brandishing (in areas without open carry). That was made abundantly clear at the CC class I attended. Now it’s open carry here and doesn’t matter.
Cities can absolutely pass enforceable gun laws.
A law that makes it illegal to exercise 1st Amendment rights and 2nd Amendment rights at the same time will not withstand scrutiny. Neither of those rights are mutually exclusive. Shenanigans like this is how the recent NY Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen SCOTUS case came to be. NY pushes unenforceable restrictions on rights regularly.
Not being allowed to bring something to a protest does not infringe on your first amendment rights at all
Not being allowed to take a gun somewhere specific is already a thing, and thus does not infringe the second amendment
I suppose we will have to see how the case goes. Bruen specifically prohibited broad restrictions on what a sensitive place can be. ‘Anywhere people are exercising 1st Amendment rights in public’ is almost certainly going to fail this test from Bruen.
A firearm ban at protests would not qualify as a broad restriction. It is targeted towards a particular type of gathering where emotions can run hot, things can get violent quite easily, and the use of a firearm, even in an otherwise legitimate scenario, would cause a ton of collateral injuries or deaths via a crowd crush.
You do not have a right to intimidate other people with a deadly weapon.
You do not have a right to intimidate other people with a deadly weapon.
The article specifically says she did no such thing. “At no point in time was anyone menaced or injured as a result of her possessing the firearm”
As I said, one may exercise 1st Amendment rights and 2nd Amendment rights at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
Best case scenario you are willingly placing yourself in a situation where you forsee the “need” to use a deadly weapon. But in that case there is no need to brandish that gun unless you want others to know you could kill them and planned for that by choosing to bring a gun which is intimidation. Especially if you are in a large crowd where people have to trust that you wont go apeshit in a place they cant escape from.
A law that makes it illegal to exercise 1st Amendment rights and 2nd Amendment rights at the same time will not withstand scrutiny.
Maybe not at the federal level, but there’s a whole gauntlet of “the 2nd amendment is just a suggestion” types to get through before the case makes its way up there.
Have fun taking a gun to a federal building that does not allow them. Go ahead, I dare you.
she violated the recently passed city law that prohibits civilians from bringing firearms to protests, the police said
One does not have just one right at a time, one has all their rights all the time.
Rights have limits.
One does not have just one right at a time, one has all their rights all the time.
Go to the White House tour while carrying a gun. Let us know how it went.
Bitch if you can’t see how bringing in a gun is an inherent act of menacing then you’re the exact kind of ignoramus who should never be trusted with a firearm.
