A federal judge is giving gun-rights advocates a limited victory after they challenged North Carolina's law banning gun possession in public during a declared emergency.
The Winston-Salem Journal reports that Judge Malcolm Howard upheld the state law while limiting the state's power to a ban guns except at the owner's own home.
Howard says while the state has a compelling interest in public safety and crime prevention, the riot control law passed in 1969 goes too far in restricting the constitutional right to gun ownership.
The ruling closes a lawsuit by gun owners from Stokes, Beaufort and Craven counties, and two gun-rights groups. Howard ruled that the state law can't apply to them.
Unbelievable. Wow. Five lies wrapped up in this one sentence summary:
So, (1) the judge "gave" a (2) "limited victory" by (3) "limiting" the state's ability to ban guns during a state of emergency (4) "except in the home" but this gift (5) only applies to the plaintiffs.
Forget gun control, how about Media Control!
NEWSFLASH: The Federal Appeals Court voided the ability of NC to ban guns during a state of emergency because to do so was repugnant to the Second Amendment of the Unites States Constitution. This was no gift. This was no limited victory. This was no limiting of a ban. This does not apply to guns in the home. This applies to everyone, not just the plaintiffs.
Gotta love media bias, especially when it comes to things for which the reporter in question disagrees on a personal level. There doesn't seem to be the old school reporting available anymore where the facts are reported as impartially as possible while leaving the reporters' personal views out of it. I believe that was the norm in the first half of the 20th Century (I may be mistaken there too, but my perception is that reporters held to a higher standard back then) and slowly has shifted to, what I'll call, "Activist Reporting."
I'm totally used to it. Since hoodie-gate, the worthless local online "news"slag here has published daily stories on 1) The lethal SYG law, 2) The "explosion" of justified homicides 3) The "qualifications" of citizens to possess lethal force, and of course 4) The spike in sales of "military grade" and "assault" weapons.
I assume they operate under the Obama-doctine: the bigger the lie, the more inflamed the morons react.
Wow, idiots. They make it sound like that can now limit firearms at home. They have NEVER been able to limit them at home. I can CC at home and on my property without a permit if I want. There are no limits on my property. I'd have to get more official info to see what this limiting factor is. Seems to me the judge limited what the state can do. I am interested in the riot provision, it's not been addressed very much. I can't seem to track down the opinion where they are quoting the judge from. It would be interesting to look at.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!