scoobdog

Joshua Tree is pretty desolate. The whole of SE California is a featureless expanse of dirt shrubs and really strange trees.

I think I'm going to drink my way through the day tomorrow.

Keep your short on. We're just killing time until that travesty of a decision is dropped on us.

Don't be daft. It doesn't count as a slippery slope when you undercut the basic legal principle behind just about any concealed carry law in existence. Thomas made it crystal clear that the burden of proof for "self-defense" is on the issuer not the issuee. To meet that burden, all I have to do is say I fear for my life. If I can't afford to take a gun safety course but I still carry a concealed weapon and get arrested, the first thing a lawyer is going to say is that my rights as a citizen were impinged because I'm being asked to prove that I need the weapon for self defense by being asked to attend a class that I can't attend. You're ignoring the fact that Thomas' decision is vaguely enough written that it doesn't give cover to all the laws that were not affected directly by the ruling.

Well.... That right there. Your rules might not be affected now, but it's only a matter of time before someone sues the state or a local Sheriff and even these regulations go out the window. Theoretically, no one should own a gun if they can't pass the same test you would need to get a CC permit. All of it is common sense, not anything special to concealed carrying.

Just so everyone knows... West Park is not a National Park.

Yeah, well marksmanship and safety tests would likely also not pass muster based solely on this decision because you have to guarantee everyone has access to them regardless of race, age, sex, or economic class. I get what you're saying, but practically speaking there isn't much room to distinguish between a gun owner and concealed carrier. At best, it's probably a test you make them pass that doesn't require a class.

Yeah, that part of Nevada and Arizona is hillbilly paradise.

That's just it, there really aren't any "objective" requirements that wouldn't disqualify someone from gun ownership in general.

I thought I could have Nabs as my buddy, but who knows if he's even going to have access to the boards on any given day?

It's a little more than that. I can certainly see why police and city administrations are worried about this because it specifically opens a weapons concealment to just about anyone who otherwise has a right to a weapon. That's traditionally been something that has been restricted because it tends to make law enforcement a whole lot more dangerous.

It most definitely is.

What about glamping?

Have to admit.... I've been really pulling for the Avs because of MD.

A dildo is just about all MTG has these days.

And… go!

Make no mistake, polarization of politics is to the point where it doesn't matter either way.

Also a spoiler alert: Texas Republicans still believe the Big Lie. The reality is that no matter what Republicans end up doing, they've hamstrung themselves with the 2020 election lies.

Is "that one person" the same person?

I like this new redirect feature.

Help moderating, you say?

So, why don’t you bring your friends here so it isn’t the same people shit posting at each other?

I clicked it at the same time as you and saw the dude's mugshot with his name, so I was wondering the same thing. If you look at the top just beneath the byline, an update was made within minutes of Buddy's post. I figured all of that was added right after Buddy posted the link. Seems odd that it took nearly a day for the info to be available , though: usually a suspect in a mass murder is identified the same day, particularly when he's subdued by civilians at the scene.

You know it. I switch between two pairs.

... Clean floor....?