Please help! Good guy arrested in Ohio

[AZRickD]

What about a speech permit?

Strawman argument, as well as not applicable. This case involves the second amendment, not the first.

Strawman? You may recall that The City of Chicago is now registering reporters. It's for the children, they say... there might be felons among the reporters who might do a story on, oh, a juvenile detention center.

Yup, I have to have a permit to exercise my natural right to self defense. But once again, I do not choose to ignore the law.

You chose not to ignore the law because you hadn't the need. Recently in the news a New Jersey woman who had been raped was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon.

Is she a good person or a bad person? If you were on her jury would you vote to convict or to acquit?

So here we come to Mr Jordan, while traveling though a state known to be extrememly hostile for those that wish to carry, chooses to ignore local law and carry anyway...He didn't do this for us, the RKBA community. He did it because he wanted to carry, local law and local RKBA'ers be damned.

And what of Ohio's Mr. Feeley? You know, the wholesale food delivery person who carried a gun because his co-worker was robbed? I don't know if he had you in mind either, but he felt that he came under Ohio's "affirmative defense" as a "prudent person." Talk about vague. But Ohio v Feeley was a landmark case. Tell us, how would you have voted on Feeley's jury? Did you contribute to his legal defense? I did. Can you think of any case where you might contribute time or money?

But I will not rally behind him like this is some great crusade for RKBA.

Oh, I guess you just answered that question, didn't you?

Rick

 

[repsychler]

So, repsychler, Hunter's right, Ohio's wrong, and you aren't even willing to give him any verbal support.

Beyond what I've already said, no. I've already said he shouldn't go to jail. I've already said if I were a lawyer I'd defend him. But I'm not going to rah rah rah rally around him like he did this to be a champion of RKBA. He did this, knowing full well the consequences, out of his own desire to carry. If anything, he hurt RKBA in Ohio by giving fuel to the anti's fire.

Hell, you aren't willing to say nothing rather than help Ohio try to condemn him. That is disgusting.

What exactly have I done to help Ohio condemn him? Did I tell him to carry those pistols? Did I tell him to make little or no attempt to conceal them? Did I tell him to speed while doing it?

Don't you understand that fighting this in court rather than plea bargaining - at great risk to one's own freedom - IS working within the law? And that working within the law requires a vast amount of publicity and financial support?

Well then why didn't he have his legal team and funding set up before he began his great crusade to bring freedom, justice and the RKBA to the oppressed peoples of Ohio?

 

[Ian]

Highland Ranger - He had a carry pistol and a BUG, just as many of us do. They're perfectly legal in his home state of NH, and a handful of other states he's also licensed in. His FAL was unloaded and locked away in a box in the back (his truck doesn't have a trunk, so he build a storage box in the back). The swords were replica Lord of the Rings blades he had taken to show his neices over Christmas and a machete he uses fairly regularly to clear roads in NH. The "knives" were a variety of things from folders to Leatherman and Gerber tools, some on his person and some locked up in the case with the rifle.

Furthermore, as a person who's made a number of long interstate road trips, I can tell you that virtually everyone breaks the speed limit on highways. Speeding and reckless driving are two totally different things.

 

[repsychler]

You chose not to ignore the law because you hadn't the need.

*** do you know of my needs?

Recently in the news a New Jersey woman who had been raped was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon.
Is she a good person or a bad person?

I don't know. All I know about her is she was raped and she carried a concealed weapon, neither of which qualifies her as a bad person.


If you were on her jury would you vote to convict or to acquit?

Have you read my posts? I've already answered this question.

 

[AZRickD]

Feeley didn't have a legal team set up before his arrest. Are you condemning him as well?

I'm paraphrasing here but my recollection of the NRA approach in the early 90's was, "we need these guns to overthrow the government if they get out of line" to "we need these guns for self defense"

Since your argument depends on that phantom quote, I suggest you go find it. And that "Jack-Booted Thug" quote was actually coined by liberal Democrat Congressman John Dingel who, with folks from both sides of the aisle were peeved at the roughshod manner in which BATF agents were conducting "business" and violating peoples' rights.

But, dang. You don't even like the reference to self defense? Talk about nambi-pambi. This from James Madison in Federalist #46 must really soften your stool:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

Madison is talking about rebellion, there. He was well aware of the meaning. Are you?

Which is why I let my membership lapse in the 90's and also why I am now a member again. And why I will not become a life member.

You might find a friendlier home at The Brady Center, Violence Policy Center, or Americans for Gun Safety. Ya see, they don't want to ban guns, they just want "sensible gun laws." That's what they say...

That early 90's hard line approach is basically scary as hell to most people, even most gun owners.

I'd bet they would shivver at the words of Madison in #46, Hamilton in #29, and Patrick Henry or Richard Henry Lee. So, why should I care? The point is where is right and wrong? I'm comfortable being on the side of the Framers, are you?

Maybe some of this is just window dressing - "defense" implies defense against any threat no? So what's the difference? None.

Talk about strawmen...

Re your argument about better and worse: my understanding is that more states have right to carry laws than ten years ago, correct? Like a lot more.

No. Only one more state has a right to carry. That would be Alaska. The rest are permitting systems with fingerprints and background checks and databases. That ain't no right.

Re: No one is above the law

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. They choose to ignore it.

And remember, the guy wasn't just carrying a single gun and stopped for a papers check at a roadblock. Multiple weapons and caught speeding. ..I mean you're asking for trouble no?

Heck, that's me everyday. And I drive 80mph (with another 10,000 friends) down to work along I-17 in Phoenix). So what?

we had our first hunt in something like 30 years this year. Why? Because regular people, not "gun nuts" or "redneck hunters" realized that it was the right thing to do for public safety.

It would be foolish for a gun rights activist to claim this argument. The antis are quite willing to say, "we don't want to take away anyone's hunting rifle..." Hunting is a permitted (licensed) act as well. And believe me, they will take it away. In 30 years when bears become over-populated again, or deers get run over enmasse, NJ might just as well have all of the LEOs volunteer to do the hunting for you, because they're more trustworthy.

But the way to this is not by speeding down the NJ turnpike with a car full of guns . . . . its in educating the masses . . . .

I don't want a softie doing the education for me. You'll end up agreeing to replace the Brady BackGround Check with a computerized database. Gee, thanks.

This guy is no hero and did no one any favors in Ohio least of all people trying to advance the RKBA cause.

Tell that to Mr. Feeley.

If you're an activist, you mobilize to make the statists work harder. You don't bury your head in the sand and let the lions eat a member of your herd (heck, he was sick, old, weak). You band together and take your hooves to the side of the predators, be they bearing criminal records or LEO credentials.

Rick

 

[AZRickD]

*** do you know of my needs?

You actions speak of your needs and willingness to meet them. If there is more to your story, please post it here. Otherwise...

All I know about her is she was raped and she carried a concealed weapon, neither of which qualifies her as a bad person.

I have more respect for her than someone who wouldn't

If you were on her jury would you vote to convict or to acquit?
Have you read my posts? I've already answered this question.

I didn't pose that question before.

You can answer it or not. One word: either "guilty" or "innocent."

And would you contribute to her legal defense fund? She wasn't an RKBA crusader. No TV cameras in tow for her.

Rick

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Wow. Interesting (and telling) discussion here. See my comment elsewhere about some people around here making good body servants. Then I would like to make a few points:

1) Yes, this could be considered civil disobedience. He was, it sounds to me, simply doing what any responsible adult should be allowed to do. I don't know if Rosa Parks intended to get arrested that day or was just too tired to move to the back of the bus, or thought she could get away with it. It doesn't matter. She disobeyed an unjust law and it became a test case.

2) The point of CD is to disobey an unjust law, and, if there is an arrest and charges filed, to use it as a forum for fighting the unjust law. It then becomes a test case and it is for everyone who has an interest or passion about the cause to try to see that the case is won. That means supporting the defendant in any (legal) way possible. I don't know if Mr. "Hunter" is the ideal poster child for our movement, I might have very little in common with him or see eye-to-eye on any other issues, but I will support his legal defense as generously as I can as soon as I am assured that this thing is legit.

3) To be effective, CD must be NON-VIOLENT! Any other approach is not only a mockery of the concept, but a sure loser in the court of public opinion. Please tone down the rhetoric, people.

 

[Don Gwinn]

My dad has a handcuff key on his keyring. He's a law-and-order guy (or at least, he thought he was. I guess some here would tell him different.) He just thinks it's a "neat" key. Like his grandson, he's fascinated by guns, keys, locks, and mechanical devices of all types. The filthy, anarchist SOB.

Just because there appear to be police on one side and a regular citizen on the other doesn't mean you can shut off your brain. As you may have guessed, although I'm glad some of you find it so funny, I wasn't terribly impressed by the implication that my dad is a raving lunatic because he carries a KEY.

The sheer nonsense is killing me.

BTW, you might remember my last post in which I mentioned a state trooper who told us that grandpa should definitely be carrying a loaded pistol (a felony) while driving on Illinois highways. Does anyone remember why he had occasion to say that? No? Well, it's been a long time since last I told that story, so I'm not surprised. The topic came up because the state trooper was buying something in dad's gun shop and dad asked him what he should say to keep my grandfather from carrying his pistol on his trips. Like I said, dad is a law-and-order guy. It's a shame he has to be condemned as a no-good criminal because he has the wrong key on his ring.

Hey, wait a minute! I almost forgot! My son has a ring with about fifty old keys on it (remember, the kid loves keys and locks) and one of them is the dreaded handcuff key!

Do you think I'm duty bound as a father to turn him over to the police, or is it all right if I just beat him with a belt?

 

[TheeBadOne]

Don Gwinn I think you're getting caught up in the emotions of this thread. Relax. No one said that meer posession of a cuff key is grounds for someone being charged/seen as a criminal (unless state law prohibits it). All that was mentioned is that posession of a cuff key may get you a second look as many criminals (gang bangers, dope dealer, violent felons etc) carry a cuff key for the explicit reason of defeating Police handcuffs. Nothing wrong at all with giving someone extra scrutiny when something out of the ordinay is observed.

All the best

 

[Don Gwinn]

Malone, Parks is on record saying she sat down in front because she was tired and her feet hurt. I've never seen evidence that there was any plan; in fact, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite.

And if you could go back to the day after and eavesdrop in the coffee shops, barber shops, etc. I bet you'd be hearing a lot of the same stuff people are saying here.

"All that woman's gonna do is get the white folks riled. Things are bound to get worse now."

"I know ya get tired of it, we all do, but we gotta know our place in the world."

 

[Don Gwinn]

TBO, he was not given extra scrutiny and then released. He was arrested. He was arrested on a matter entirely unrelated to what keys he carried, and yet the key got prominent mention in the subsequent attempts by the police to justify his arrest by press release (along with apparent lies about a "detonator.")

Then, after he'd been arrested, and after the arrest had been justified after the fact by nonsense about swords, detonators and handcuff keys, you and others on this site implied that the arrest made sense because he had a handcuff key. You did not say "Well, it's too bad he was arrested, but they would have been right if they'd limited themselves to giving him a second look and then let him go when it was apparent that he was no criminal."

No, instead you pointed and laughed. You'll have to excuse me if I took you at your action. But take heart. I'm not actually angry. Just using a bit of emphasis to point out the silliness of an age where possession of a key justifies being arrested for breaking an unrelated and unConstitutional law.

 

[TheeBadOne]

TBO, he was not given extra scrutiny and then released. He was arrested. He was arrested on a matter entirely unrelated to what keys he carried, and (A) yet the key got prominent mention in the subsequent attempts by the police to justify his arrest by press release (along with apparent lies about a "detonator.")

Then, after he'd been arrested, and after the arrest had been justified after the fact by nonsense about swords, detonators and handcuff keys, (B) you and others on this site implied that the arrest made sense because he had a handcuff key. You did not say "Well, it's too bad he was arrested, but they would have been right if they'd limited themselves to giving him a second look and then let him go when it was apparent that he was no criminal."

(C) No, instead you pointed and laughed. You'll have to excuse me if I took you at your action. But take heart. I'm not actually angry. Just using a bit of emphasis to point out the silliness of an age where possession of a key justifies being arrested for breaking an unrelated and unConstitutional law.

A) It got mention, but not prominent, heck it's not a crime.

B) I never said that it made sense that he was arrested, period, much less that because he had a cuff he deserved to be arrested.

C) What I laughed at was someone with no practical experiance/training/knowledge commenting; "I carry a cuff key every day on my keyring just as a novelty item. I don't really see why it would be cause for alarm for a police officer."
That comment (laughing smiley) didn't have a thing to do with Mr. Jeffrey Jordan.

If you really want to know how I feel on something, ask.

Do I think Mr. Jeffrey Jordan is a big bad, bad guy? No
Do I think he broke the law? Yes
Do I think he should go to prison for a long time? No
Do I wish him well in court? Yes
Do I want to send him some money? No

All the best

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Parks is on record saying she sat down in front because she was tired and her feet hurt. I've never seen evidence that there was any plan; in fact, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite.

That's funny, I read somewhere she was already an activist and it was done to create a test case. But it still doesn't matter. She had a human right to sit any where she pleased (on that bus), and this person had a right to have a gun in his car.

 

[Wildalaska]

You might find a friendlier home at The Brady Center, Violence Policy Center, or Americans for Gun Safety. Ya see, they don't want to ban guns, they just want "sensible gun laws."

Well guess what...contrary to the militia pamphlets I see quoted in this thread, "senssible" gun laws are entirely constituional...and in the eyes of the vast number of owners of guns and the general public. appropriate.

Thus....felons and the disturned cant own guns
States can regulate the carrying of guns.
Background checks can be performed

Those are all laws that have or can pass contstituional muster and all the whining and crying for example about grandpappy felons who have led blameless lives for 35 years not withstanding...

If you think they arent constituional, file a lawsuit.

And for those who would call me a Bradyite, I think the AWB is unconstituional, I think that the 86 ban on new machine guns is unconstituional, and a ban on posession of guns in a local jurisdiction is unconstituional.

As others have said, ya play, ya pay, and this guy is nothing more than a criminal if convicted.


WildicantbeleivesomeofthestuffireadAlaska

 

[El Tejon]

Malone, are you thinking of the Griswold case perchance???

 

[Highland Ranger]

Since your argument depends on that phantom quote, I suggest you go find it.

The quotes refer to me paraphrasing what I felt was the NRA's stance at the time - not an actual quote. Sorry if that's not clear. Could I be wrong? Anything can happen I guess, but I remember specifically canceling my membership because I thought the "throw down the government" crap (again, my quotes) was a bit too much. We live in the greatest nation in the world, with all its warts. I guess there is a place for the paranoia - I'll let you hold it. Stockpiling weapons/ammo for civil unrest is one thing, maybe even prudent. Stockpiling for the black helicopters . . . well at this stage of the game I'm fairly certain I'm not that important. But it sounds like you are so good luck.

But, dang. You don't even like the reference to self defense? Talk about nambi-pambi. This from James Madison in Federalist #46 must really soften your stool:

Not sure where I gave you that impression, but if so, not correct. I think self defense is the core of where our success will be because it appeals to everyone (except the British apparently). Its REASONABLE, which is what the “gun nut†arguments always lack. Also, I'd rather not discuss my bowel movements publicly. You're a bit rude BTW.

You might find a friendlier home at The Brady Center, Violence Policy Center, or Americans for Gun Safety. Ya see, they don't want to ban guns, they just want "sensible gun laws."

Give me a break and get with the times. The Revolutionary War is over. We live here and NOW and the fact is that no-laws like those in Vermont and Alaska just are not going to happen in the more populated states. And for good reason. Let's shoot (pun intended) for what is attainable, and then maybe we can talk about this in ten years. One thing is for sure, rabid "gun nuts" will get nowhere with the general populace. That'll kill us for sure.

No. Only one more state has a right to carry. That would be Alaska. The rest are permitting systems with fingerprints and background checks and databases. That ain't no right.

OK first of all YAWN. Do more states allow people (law abiding citizens who pass a background check) to carry guns now or in 1990? Yeah OK, not a "RIGHT", a privilege, but all the same, you can get a CCW permit in more states now than before (10 years ago) right? That's progress. And in more populated areas, it’s a good thing you do have to pass a background check.

As I'm writing this it occurs to me that a lot of you guys need to go find a lawless frontier somewhere because you don't live in the same world I do. Maybe that's the difference between Midtown Manhattan, and some Bayou or Mountain Hollow or desert somewhere . . . who knows. Frankly, if it wasn’t for everything else in my life, I’d join you.

Re Speeding - Know when the rev limiter on a Suburban cuts in? At about 105 mph . . . . but if I was driving through a gun unfriendly state with guns in the car (oh I do every day) I sure wouldn't be getting her up on two wheels. And the guns would be kept in accordance with the states laws. Its not civil disobedience, its, well no insult intended here, but not the smartest thing to do otherwise. And certainly not heroic or worthy of any donation.

If you're an activist, you mobilize to make the statists work harder. You don't bury your head in the sand and let the lions eat a member of your herd (heck, he was sick, old, weak). You band together and take your hooves to the side of the predators, be they bearing criminal records or LEO credentials.

Never said I was an activist . . . I give when I can, what I can but I'm busy with my LIFE. No time for dueling with windmills . . . again, sounds like you have it covered. Good luck.

 

[jimpeel]

DELETED by jimpeel

 

[jimpeel]

Alan Fud

May I ask, what harm was done to ANY by Mr. Jordan's action of carrying a loaded firearm? If no harm was done to anyone and no one suffered any lose, why is Mr. Jordan being charged with a crime? This is what I don't understand about gun laws.

This is part of what I term the death of motive.

American jurisprudence relies on three tenets for a conviction of a crime -- means (or method), motive (or intent), and opportunity.

Surely, this man had the means to great destruction; and he certainly had the opportunity with every person he met. What he lacks is motive. What was his motive with carrying and transporting these arms?

If his motive was to wreak destruction on every passing individual, robbery, murder, terrorism, then he should be held to the highest order of the law.

If, however his motive was simple self defense from those who would seek to wreak destruction upon him, then his motives were honorable and peaceful in their nature; and he is simply guilty of the crime of fear.

Now, those who would fail in their duty to protect him from those he fears are intent on placing him in the confines of the very people he feared the most and armed himself against -- hardened criminals.

If state troopers in Ohio do not want people arming themselves for protection against a predatory criminal element, they should escort those who pass through the state from one end to the other. Fat chance of that ever happening, though.

 

[jimpeel]

Things that make you go "Hmmmmm".

I wonder if they found an almanac in his car also.

This guy could have defused the entire situation if he had, when the red-n-blues came on simply taken his firearms out of his belt and thrown them on the passenger seat. The "assault weapon" was in a locked case as it is supposed to be, and the only thing he is charged with is the CCW violation.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Motive

Motive (intent) in an element in some offenses, and is not and required elemetn in others. IE: the difference between Murder and Manslaughter is intent. Speeding/DUI do not require intent. I suspect that Jeffrey Jordans' charges of two counts of carrying a concealed weapon will not be met with a defense "I didn't know (intend to) I was carrying".

2 cents

 

[Bill St. Clair]

jimpeel:

This guy could have defused the entire situation if he had, when the red-n-blues came on simply taken his firearms out of his belt and thrown them on the passenger seat. The "assault weapon" was in a locked case as it is supposed to be, and the only thing he is charged with is the CCW violation.

That would have made it a misdemeanor instead of a felony, though it may actually have been the trooper dragging him out of his car that caused that distinction.

Does anybody else agree with me that this is absurd? Guns covered by coat = felony. Same guns one foot away on car seat = misdemeanor. Bizarre.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Deleted by CHL 22:36

Not worth flogging the same point repeatedly.

 

[Cactus]

This thread ties in quite nicely with the thread about obeying laws you feel to be immoral. I want to start out saying that I hope Mr. Jordon is found innocent of these charges and that I also hope that all states adopt concealed carry laws.

It does seem odd to me that Mr. Jordon would not be aware of the laws regarding CCW in Ohio if he is such a Second Amendment activist. This is a lesson to all to be aware of the laws of a jurisdiction you plan to travel through.

Whether or not one finds these laws just or unjust or constitutional or unconstitutional, this law is currently real. I'm sure that Mr. Jordon can attest to how real this law is. A good portion of Mr. Jordon's fortune will be spent defending himself and his freedom. That's about as real as it gets!

If Mr. Jordon (anyone else for that matter) was intent on committing civil disobedience (cd), they need to realize that cd is NOT breaking the law with the intention of getting away with it. The entire point of cd is to break the law and dare the authorities to arrest and prosecute you. It is through this arrest and prosecution that you hope to show the unjust nature of those laws. To do so is an act of great moral courage, one that not many people have.

If this was Mr. Jordon's intent, he is a courageous man. If not he is simply a criminal at this point but can still perform a great service to the people of Ohio by prevailing in his court case. However, I feel that he will most likely fail in court. The point of civil disobedience is to create a public outcry and force a change through the legislature as was done during the civil rights battles of the 1960's.

As for the gun board commandos who will "shoot it out" with the police if they try to arrest them for carrying concealed, grow up. Anyone who does this is no different than the Black Panthers who murdered police and judges and the members of Weather Underground and SLA who robbed banks and bombed office buildings because they didn't like the laws. It makes you nothing but a terrorist. You may like to think of yourself as the modern day incarnate of the Minutemen, but those kind of actions make you nothing but the equivelent of the Brownshirts.

 

[jimpeel]

I don't know Ohio law, but I'd be very suprised if he was sentanced to jail time. (unless there's more charges we don't know about).

Even if he gets probation, or nothing at all, the fact that the charges could have resulted in jail time in excess of one year excludes him from firearms possession or ownership for the remainder of his years.

 

[AZRickD]

Well guess what...contrary to the militia pamphlets I see quoted in this thread, "senssible" gun laws are entirely constituional...and in the eyes of the vast number of owners of guns and the general public. appropriate.

Great. Now quoting James Madison is quoting a militia pamphlet. Sorry, MildAlaska. If we can't come to terms on the principles lain down by the Framers, I don't think we have much to talk about. You don't want to contribute to Hunter's legal defense fund, fine. But attempting to justify your lack of action by saying most gun owners would agree is just plain lazyiness or cowardice.

Thus....felons and the disturned cant own guns
States can regulate the carrying of guns.
Background checks can be performed

Those are all laws that have or can pass contstituional muster

That's an utter, outright lie. The lower Federal and Supreme Court in the 20th Century has upheld just about every gun prohibition law that has come its way. Morton Grove bans guns. Okay with the Robed Ones. California bans semi-autos. Fine with the Robed Ones. Machine guns taxed. Okay. New Machine guns prohibited. Okay, too, I suppose.

If you think they arent constituional, file a lawsuit.

I've been around this too much to know that a court filing is worth no more to me than the press it can generate. Ian is not asking you to file a court case, he's asking for people to contribute to a Legal Defense Fund. And as you have proven, it is so much easier to say no and whine than it is for you to write a check for $5 and send it to KABA. Your excuse-making is grandiose to the extreme.

I think the AWB is unconstituional, I think that the 86 ban on new machine guns is unconstituional, and a ban on posession of guns in a local jurisdiction is unconstituional.

Well, then. By your own definition, you are out of step with the mainstream and are harmful to the cause of RKBA, whatever you define it to be ("please allow me to get fingerprinted for my laminated card, and while you're at it, repeal Alaska and Vermont carry.") Sheesh.

Never said I was an activist

Good. If you and Mild were, you'd try to repeal Alaska carry. I think we're better off if you just stay home.

Stockpiling for the black helicopters . . . well at this stage of the game I'm fairly certain I'm not that important. But it sounds like you are so good luck.

I ask you to find the NRA quote and you come back with this?

Its REASONABLE, which is what the “gun nut†arguments always lack.

I'm not going to let you get off so easy. You label some (which?) argument a "gun nut argument" and then fail to say what it is and why it is wrong.

You're a bit rude BTW.

You bet. See http://www.unarmedvictimzone.com and click on the "Activism On The Cheap" link to see just how rude I can be when a bureaucrat infringes on a rape victim's right to self defense. That web page sits there as a warning to any other politicos who would try to mess with us. Politics is Personal. They hate that.

The Revolutionary War is over. We live here and NOW

But the Constitution was written then too. The Declaration of Independence was written then too, and is cited in Supreme Court cases. You can't dismiss it. The right to self defense does not end because 200 years have passed. Yours is another Brady Center argument. Congrats.

Let's shoot (pun intended) for what is attainable,

No. Let's shoot for what is right. Freedom. Anything else is a compromise that allows the bad guys turf they should not own.

One thing is for sure, rabid "gun nuts" will get nowhere with the general populace. That'll kill us for sure.

Really? We did so well with the NRA. InstaCheck? I'd rather go for a no-compromise, GOA-style attack.

Do more states allow people (law abiding citizens who pass a background check) to carry guns now or in 1990? Yeah OK, not a "RIGHT", a privilege,

The permit system says the government, with a vote of the legislature, has the Power, to disarm its populace. It also registers hundreds of thousands of people as gun owners. Bad.

And in more populated areas, it’s a good thing you do have to pass a background check.

Why is it a good thing in big cities and not a good thing for Vermont and Alaska? Do criminals in big cities decide not to carry guns because they can't get a permit?

Know when the rev limiter on a Suburban cuts in? At about 105 mph

When I was in Ohio last August, the mass of people were driving between 75 and 85 mph on I270 and SR33. The police could pull them over for speeding, or pull them over for not flowing with traffic. Your choice.

Rick