Does not anyone else find it repugnant that there is some fed-clause that disarms otherwise law-abiding citizens from even the possession of a firearm in our - let's take a pause to hail a toast! - our own national monuments/parks?
Are not these natural wonders a cherished & blessed remeberance of why we are here, & what we defend? the very essense of the land? the very best?
& here, we are disarmed.
Regardless if this guy was a nut-job, he broke no law (as reported) other than "being in possession of ... "
"The fabric of due process has already been rent asunder by voire dire (french for "stacking the jury"), and judges who rule on their political beliefs rather than constitutional law."
Yup, YesSir! ditto. Uh-huh ....
But, El Tejon, " Militia boys are a direct threat to the integrity of law enforcement. They cause mistrust and fear by their play-acting."
But if "play-acting" is all they're doing, how can that be a threat? Every "knows" that militia-men are a bunch of over-weight, beer-guzzling, wanna-bes. Right?
& that's a threat?
Mayhaps you rethink your policy towards those that are "allowed" their fantacies.
I would be much more concerned about a well-fit, dedicated member of society, who knew their rights, disgusted with the current (& far more increasing mind-set of LEOs) militarisation of the police. & one who keeps his mouth shut & will just do what he thinks need be done.
Enough said on that subject - for now - new thread coming.