US Supreme Court rules right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!

Live off the SCOTUS blog:

10:12
Tom Goldstein - Heller affirmed.
10:13
Ben Winograd -

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.



Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

10:13
Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.

10:14
Tom Goldstein - It is striking that the decision is not clouded by ambiguity created by separate opinions. One opinion on each side.
10:16
Tom Goldstein - Apologies - there is a second dissenting opinion, but only one majority - no plurality and no concurrences.

we need them to release the documents

incorporation will have to be answered at a later date.

Now they can get rid of those damn detectors in the courthouses. Life is good!

:sarcasm:

Or, perhaps, do you have any statement of substance that you would like to make?

You do realize that in order to legally carry a firearm in public you need to live in place that grants concealed carry permits? And you do realize that people who have concealed carry permits are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime than non-permit holders?

CCW-permit holders are among the most law-abiding citizens in the nation. Moreover, in EVERY state that has allowed concealed carry, crime has gone down after the enacting of that law. Every state.

As for armed housing projects, if I am allowed to be armed in my nice home in the suburbs, why can not a poor person in a housing project also enjoy the right to keep and bear arms?

GORFLE said:
You do realize that in order to legally carry a firearm in public you need to live in place that grants concealed carry permits?

That's not true in many states. Open carry without ANY license/permit/FOID is legal in MANY states, including Ohio where I live.
Each states laws are different. Don't mentally project your states laws upon other states.

Typical comment from a racist.

I guess if you let us nigs and the wetbacks have guns in our crackhood housing projects we're all going to end up killing ourselves, hence your sarcasm. And of course white people are never in a courthouse, unless they work there.

I lived in a predominantly black project when I was a kid, for a period of time, and it was a safe, albiet poor, place.

Your comment was disgusting.

I didn't seem him mention a word about race. In my experience, he who mentions race first is usually the racist.

That aside, his comments were ridiculous.

are already armed, though those that are armed are usually the very ones that you would wish were not. I suspect now, that there is an SC decision to be pointed to as precedent, a lot of the places where the good people living in the projects were disarmed by disgusting, originally racist laws will become safer as those laws are repealed. Why? The deterrent factor of uncertainty. Now, all those gang-types will not know whether or not their non-gang member quarry is armed. Fearing the possibility of violent retaliation, we should see a drop in the levels of violent crimes perpetrated against the population in general.

90% of our shootings happen within a mile of them. Gun control working at it's best.

David

"It was the year of fire. The year of destruction. The year we took back what was ours. It was the year of rebirth. The year of great sadness. The year of pain. And the year of joy. It was a new age. It was the end of history. It was the year everything changed."

I am shaking.

Tears litterally welling up in my eyes.


The above "introduction" from season 4 of "Babylon 5" seems fitting in many ways.

A little emotional, are you?

What can possibly be bad about people being able to defend themselves in their own homes? That's all this ruling accomplished.

The handgun murder rate in D.C. is exactly where it was before the ban was enacted 30 years ago. It has done nothing but disarm the law-abiding.

The tears welling up this morning, were tears of joy.


My mention of the B5 intro, was simply an observation of the overall picture of the diversity of opinion on the Heller ruling.


For the pro-gun side (my side and yours) I think "the year we took back what was ours" , "It was the year of rebirth", "the year of joy" and "it was the year everything changed" are all quite fitting.


Tis not every day one can live through history the magnitude of today.

That is an awesome graphic. Mind if I use it as well?


Pretty please?

Spread it all over if you like. This is a time for celebration! :hi:

It is indeed time to celebrate, and reflect on the long fought battle.

Again, thanks.

the second amendment as written does not give an individual the right to possess a firearm for any other purpose except to defend our country. We don't need a ruling on the amendment, we need a constitutional convention to ensure that it can no longer be intrepreted to satisfy dozens of points of views.

Conservatives whine about judicial activism. They insist on the strict word for word reading of the founding father's intent. Today's ruling is most likely the greatest example of judicial activism ever in our country's history.

I say it does.

Without security for everyone, security of the state means nothing.

as it were, is not gun ownership. I am 100% for gun ownership to be used for personal protection, hunting, sport, collecting etc. I'm also 100% opposed to ambiguity in our laws. Your question would not need be asked if the second amendment as written 200+ years ago was not ambiguous to some. The founding fathers were dealing with our free state's security way back when. Ben Franklin went to France begging for weaponry to fight the evil British. Things have changed since our state's security was dependent upon an armed citizenry. Its time for the amendment to change as well to reflect today. Today's ruling was just conservative blow hards actively huffing and puffing. And we all know when they do it, their actions have nothing to do with activism.

Things can fall apart quickly and dramatically.

Last time I called the San Diego PD, it took them almost 40 minutes to show up. That was on a bright sunny Saturday afternoon.

>>Things have changed since our state's security was dependent upon an armed citizenry. Its time for the amendment to change as well to reflect today<<

An important benefit of having an armed citizenry is that it keeps potential tyrants at bay. Would the people of North Korea be eating rats and insects if the people were armed? How many times in the last 100 years alone have disarmed citizens been subjected to horrific abuse by their leaders, sometimes elected leaders?

The interpretation of the amendment shouldn't change because human nature doesn't change. If you think we are "better than that" then you are very mistaken.

Furthermore, can a state be called free when you are required to die rather than possess effective means of defending yourself and your family in your own home?

Futhermore, without the induvidual and family THERE IS NO STATE, free or otherwise. We ARE the state,
and the security of the people and the state are one and the same, IMHO. We should be able to defend
our families, ourselves and our homes because of our constitution not in spite of it.

I agree with the substance of today's ruling but the second amendment as written does not give an individual the right to possess a firearm for any other purpose except to defend our country.

From the SCOTUS decision:

"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

SCOTUS clearly says here that the second amendment is NOT connected with militia service, and DOES provide for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.

from an August body of nine people with fancy robes. I am all for gun ownership rights in our country. Why is there so much ambiguity?

Today's supreme court says "protect an individual right" "unconnected with service in a militia." The second amendment as currently written says and means no such thing.

"SCOTUS clearly says." NO. SCOTUS clearly interepts.

And since the ambiguity is still there the argument will go on on and on and on. Why not a constitutional convention?

>>The second amendment as currently written says and means no such thing<<

The Supreme Court reasonably interpreted the second amendment to mean:

"This amendment is a limitation on government, not the granting of a new right. An individual person's pre-existing right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only reason we're even mentioning it is because the security of a free state depends on an armed citizenry."

As for the argument going on and on, this opinion is consistent with the Miller decision. The Supreme Court rarely contradicts earlier decisions. I would expect further rulings on narrower subjects, but no wholesale reversal of this opinion.

Another interpretation from an August body of nine people with fancy robes. I am all for gun ownership rights in our country. Why is there so much ambiguity?

As I read the decision, I find there is not much ambiguity. Of course, I did not find the second amendment ambiguous prior to the decision. But the decision spells out quite clearly the legal interpretation of the amendment.

Today's supreme court says "protect an individual right" "unconnected with service in a militia." The second amendment as currently written says and means no such thing.

I think if you read the decision ( http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf ) you will see how they jusfitied their assertion. And it's pretty specific.

>>the second amendment as written does not give an individual the right to possess a firearm...<<

The second amendment doesn't give anybody anything, period. It recognizes a pre-existing right that has been with us since cavemen carried spears and prohibits government from infringing it.

As for your position regarding the "militia" portion of the amendment, you are simply wrong according to both the Miller decision and this one. I suspect you have probably read neither opinion. you might start there.

The "militia" clause sets out the reason for enacting the amendment, but doesn't limit it. Remember the amendment is just recognizing a pre-existing right. There was debate during the amendment's passage about why they should even mention the right to keep and bear arms because it was almost a 'given'.

challenged.

I really thought at least 6-3, rather than 5-4, but I can't complain-they specified individual right, for self defense and specied againse trigger locks and other nonsense.
Chigcago and New York should lose their restrictions soon as well.

A sigh of relief.

mark

why would that be considered anti-2nd amendment?

I understand how it can slow down a response to an armed opponent in a self-defense situation, so that is not what I am asking. I don't understand how potential safety measures such as trigger locks are anti-gun bearing/ownership. Does a trigger lock or other system prevent us from bearing arms?

And run from a bear.

A state can't mandate that any gun sale include a trigger lock, I think.

But it does mean the state cannot mandate that all your firearms be stored with locks engaged. Which is good from a self-defense standpoint. It will require people be responsible about storage however.

prevents you from keeping a functional gun for self-defense, thereby directly contravening the 2ndA.

Trigger locks can sometimes pull the trigger on a loaded gun, and they don't prevent the gun from being loaded. So they don't render a gun safe to leave lying around in the reach of children. What they DO do is make the gun more or less unusable for self-defense in the home.

FWIW, my wife and I keep our guns in a safe when not in use, and are legally authorized to have a handgun on our persons. But they aren't trigger locked, and at least one gun in the safe is always loaded when we are home.

I don't see that language in there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I am pro-responsible gun ownership, and pro-cc license, I just don't understand how the above text mentions anything about self-defense or trigger locks.

for all practical purposes.

Especially if it takes longer to enable it than the duration of reasonably foreseeable conflicts.

Imagine the US in the cold war had a nuclear arsenal that took 15 hours to launch any missiles, but the Soviet arsenal took 3 minutes. Would we not be disarmed relative to the Soviets, at least for defensive purposes? They could annihilate us before we could bring our weapons to bear. Effectively, we would have no (defensive) nuclear weapons.

I've never used a trigger lock gun, so I am honestly just curious.

Are they a real pain to use or something? I assumed it was a switch of some sort, like a safety, but is it a lot more complicated?

As for response time in need, I think it could be argued that if someone has already drawn and sighted on you, then your odds of successfully responding, even with an unlocked gun, are pretty low because they can squeeze their trigger considerably faster than you can draw your weapon.

It's been a while since I've shot, so maybe I am overlooking something here. Again, just curious why the outrage over something like a trigger lock, and how they work. I guess for me, I have always interpreted the 2nd as gun ownership being regulated like anything else which can be a threat. I am fine with individual ownership (I don't read the "militia" part that way), but I do (or did, rather) read the 'well regulated' as it being something which is not a free for all either.

It's a very tricky issue, and sadly, I think people on both sides get a little too passionate (ie" assed up) sometimes, but I can understand that, as I am very passionate about the 1st amendment, which in my opinion is even more important.

Anyway, thanks for the civil discourse and answer.

Some require punching in codes or are like a combination lock.

In severe stress, fine motor skills are impaired. Also the ability to see the numbers and remember the codes when the intruder is climbing through your window or kicking down your front door at 2:00 AM is, let's say challenging. Turning on the light is a dead giveaway to your position.

See my OP here for more information: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170607

The problem was more the law than the locks.

During the oral arguments for Heller, DC tried to make the case that you could own a firearm, and you could use it for self-defense - you just could only make it operational when needed for self defense, and not before.

In other words, you had to keep it locked up and non-functional "until you needed it".

But the question is, when is it appropriate to say "you need it"?

Whenever you are home?

Whenever it's night time?

Whenever you hear noises?

Whenever someone is kicking in your door?

Basically, the law was intended to prohibit firearm ownership by making it so onerous to legally possess one, by making the "need" metric intentionally vauge, that people would not bother.

To answer your question, there are gun safes and locking mechanisms that allow speedy retrieval of a firearm.

Nobody with their own survival in mind would wait to retrieve their friearm until after they were already in the sights of their home invader. The idea is that if you get woken up to breaking glass at three in the morning, you can have a ready weapon NOW in order to respond to the noise, instead of cowering under the bed hoping you don't get murdered by the criminal who has broken into a home with sleeping occupants. Is it a kid from down the street or is it jeffrey dahmer? Why would you wait to make visual contact with your invader to go retrieve your gun, instead of arming yourself right off the bat so you aren't fucked while on the phone with 911.

or ever?

Ok, home invasions happen, but they're rare. I don't think the choice is (a) cower under the bed or (b) come out shooting. In fact, I pity the person who breaks into my house.

for self defense. In fact most of the time when an armed citizen stops an attack or other threat they do so without needing to shoot at the attacker. Displaying a weapon when appropriate can be a good symbol to the aggressor that they should find somewhere else to be, and they should find it ten minutes ago. If the attacker does not stop their advance, then their shooting is entirely their own fault.

and the use of the phrase "to bear arms" in the contemporaneous state constitutions, ruled (and IMHO rightly so) that self-defense was and is a fundamental part of that.

And from a pragmatic standpoint, self-defense is the primary reason Americans own guns today, anyway. Target shooting is in second place, and hunting is a distant third. So any attempt to preserve the status quo as far as gun rights would have to expressly protect self-defense.

FWIW, if you try to read the Bill of Rights so narrowly that you don't find a right of self-defense in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then there is no WAY you can find a right to privacy (and by extension, abortion) in the Fourth Amendment. The way the gun-control lobby reads the 2ndA is precisely the same way the Bush Administration reads the 4thA, and the Moral Majority reads the 1stA.

However, we unfortunately now have a whole class of individuals who make their living getting into potential nuances and using any combination of current and old language to pretend that there has ever been any ambiguity about the founding fathers intent in regards to the second amendment. Why would they write in a bill of rights that was a limitation on what government can do except for one amendment that was completely meaningless? Obviously the states and federal government had a carefully scripted ability to raise an army in times of crisis or war, why on earth would the BILL OF RIGHTS for citizens include a right for the government? That is an asinine way of looking at the second amendment. It wasn't written by ancient mayans. We have not lost all knowledge of the times in which it was written, and we do not need to translate the words to understand them. We simply have to look at all the other amendments, the declaration of independence, the rest of the constitution, let alone all the works of the founding fathers and their contemporaries who clearly didn't think that they had to spell out a right for citizens to own and use personal arms and to protect themselves.

It is a modern way of thinking that relies on the government to spell out every single action we are allowed to take, instead of the original american mindset of independence and self-reliance.

I have to laugh. Firstly, at no point did I say I am anti-gun, and in fact several times state I am not. I was curious about locks.

Secondly, were it so cut and dried simple as you say, this debate would not be happening.

the general group of people who are rabidly anti-gun and anti-self defense. The brady bunch et al have made quite a nice living for themselves pretending that our founding fathers were anything but totally unanimous on the idea that self-defense is a right not related to any government approval, and scaring people into thinking that isolated incidents are a national epidemic that no one is safe from.

isn't that what you're doing with the home invasion scenario?

My bed is not right next to my front door, I have a dog, and I have a gun. No trigger lock, but I have several minutes before they'd even find the stairs.

and it sucks, but them's the breaks when living in a sh***y apartment. As a result, my CZ-75 remains within reach at all hours, because another Sh***y fact of life is that my neighborhood is one of the worst in an otherwise wonderful town, and I have had people come to my door (above ground, behind the house, unlit, looks like the back door to one of the front apartments) looking for people I have never heard of late at night, and it is unnerving. There is a house next door that is full of people day and night, and a guy across the street who does nothing but stand in his yard from morning till night most days. I don't trust my neighborhood and I don't feel like getting stabbed because some fool jonesing for oxycontin thinks I'm lying about whether "Gabriel" or "James" lives with me.


Good job not tying your hands with a trigger lock though, they are not good for any situation I can think of unless someone enjoys leaving their gun in their toddler's crib or in their six year old's backpack.

This may be off topic, but I want to voice my support for your arm of choice. It is a fine weapon and I wish that it were better known given its high quality and low price point. Interestingly, when I was in high school, we had a Slovakian exchange student. He wanted to go shooting and was shocked when he was told that he couldn't buy 9mm ammo at 18. "Guns are guns, right?" Yeah, but if it's handgun ammo you need to be 21. "Really?" Yeah. "...Strange." My understanding is that in the Czech Republic it is more like it is here, with the cutoff being 21.

trust me, I live in a neighborhood where more than one person has been shot less than a block away, so I understand what you're saying. But I also understand that there are many ways to avoid being a victim too.

>>>Does a trigger lock or other system prevent us from bearing arms?<<<

"Bearing arms" clearly means "bearing arms that are functional", otherwise the "right" is meaningless. If someone kicks your door in in the middle of the night, he's not going to wait while you unlock your gun. Some locks are easier to work than others, but all are an impediment when in a stressful "seconds count" situation.

The D.C. law required that rifle and shotgun owners keep their guns trigger-locked or disassembled - non-functional in their home. A D.C. appeals court ruling held that the law meant it was unlawful to use a rifle or shotgun in self-defense in your home (because unlocking it would be illegal).

exactly how an individual conducts their day to day life. If you have a gun at home for defense, and you need it, then what you don't need to do is go fumbling around looking for your keys if you get an unexpected knock at the door late at night. How can you "bear" an arm that is not able to fire? Besides that, if you ever do have to fire a shot (if you must fire one, your training should kick in and you should fire until the threat has ceased) in anger than you are basically at the mercy of the local court system and DA, hoping that they don't make you ineligible to own firearms because you committed a crime by unlocking your gun.

Rights do not require micro-managing. Everyone should have a safe when possible, and inside a safe what use is a trigger lock?

actually admitted to their being a individual right but that a handgun ban was reasonable

The right is individual, but any restriction that they find reasonable is o.k.





And they have yet to see a ban that looks unreasonable to them, probably because they also view self-protection as an unreasonable act.

Good for the SCOTUS. And it's good to see affirmation that we have a right to defend ourselves in our own homes.

:thumbsup:

but any new "assault weapon ban" would probably fail the common-use test the opinion seems to establish. The opinion mentions M16's as not being protected, but civilian AR-15's presumably would be as they are the most common defensive carbines (and centerfire target rifles) in the USA.



Since so-called "assault weapons" are some of the most common rifles in this country "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" (more Americans own them than hunt), then they would be protected.

What about this?

"does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes..."

The reason many weapons aren't typically possessed by law-abiding citizens" is that they are illegal. The government could ban each new weapon as it is released and rely on the argument that they aren't typically possessed by law-abiding citizens.

rather than individual makes and models. The Kel-Tec RFB or Magpul Masada aren't on the market yet, but there are plenty of autoloading .308 Winchesters and .223 Remingtons with similar features, and have been since the 1950's and 1960's.

That's what we gunheads have been saying forever. The idiots who constantly point to "Miller" as though it supports their anti-gun position don't realize that the main holding in that case is that only weapons usable by a militia are protected by the amendment. That presumably means fully-automatic weapons, artillery, tanks, missiles, etc...

Where do I get a permit for a tactical nuke?

To be allied with the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

I know I would be embarrassed to be in agreement with Justice Scalia on any important topic.

on a given point--as long as WE ARE ALL RIGHT.

You take your allies where you can get them.

Justice Scalia may eat babies every other day of the week, but on this day he stood for an important, fundamental American right.

Would I rather the more progressive justices championed this right? You betcha. But I won't look this gift horse in the mouth.

if those same justices upheld Roe v. Wade?

Or any other ruling heavily "associated" with the Democratic party.

I'll bet you would be singing a different tune!


The MAJORITY of Democrats WANTED this ruling!

When ones house is on fire, does one stop the firefighters to make sure they aren't conservatives?

It makes me uncomfortable that four Supreme Court Justices are either incapable of understanding a very simple idea from our founding fathers or that they feel that any ban on any personal weapons is a reasonable one.

I can't believe it was that close, but thank God the right decision was made.

To (usually very informed and predictive) commentary on the legal blogs I follow.

Most expected a 7-2 or even 9-0 on the individual rights basis.

That it was 5-4 is astounding to me.

Sorry to say this, but the dissents are ABSURDly twisted and quasi-legal. Read some of the commentary at Scotusblog or Volokh.com

The sad 4 sound like some kids justifying something to mom.

Iow, not logical, not legal, and not scholarly.

I'm all for gun ownership because I live in a responsible area where people know what guns are for and what they're not for. I do worry about guns in places like--say--Manhattan.

I'm okay with individual rights for guns.

What inherent malfunction do manhattanites have that residents of (for example - WA state) other areas don't.

What is the worry?

Seriously?

The criminals already have guns in manhattan. That much is crystal clear.

The VAST majority of urban people in the US north east have no experience or knowledge of firearms unless they are police, in the military, or are already criminals. Gun shops and ranges are few and far between. There's as much gun culture in NYC as there are bagel and falafel shops in rural Kentucky.

I'm an NY/NJ area transplant to Texas. I have guns in my home. I'm pro-gun. But if its going to become easy for people to carry in the urban NE, then there should also be free gun safety and responsibility courses for all citizens.

Spent some time there.

I agree there's not a lot of gun culture in NYC. Heck, there is not a lot IN Seattle either. You gotta go north, east or south.

If and When concealed carry was ever legalized in NYC, there would be PLENTY of businesses catering to the need for training, ranges, etc. It's a chicken/egg type thang.

Necessity being the mother of something after all...

My general experience is that within the Seattle city limits there are FAR less CCW's per capita and guns in general (law abiding guns) than in Auburn, Kent, Snoqualmie, places like that. That is a cultural thing. Also, rural residents are way more self sufficient. If your nearest police response can take 20 minutes, you learn to take care of bidness.

Otoh, you cannot get decent deli in Seattle to SAVE YOUR LIFE.

And don't even get me started on the chowder... I say as a former New Englander...

Ivar's sucks. Homeport in Martha's Vineyard or almost anywhere in Point Judith RI - now THAT is chowder

A recent article showed that making $42K in NYC a year is like making $46K in urban Texas and like making 15K a year anywhere else. $60K is the start of working class. When I moved out of my studio apartment (no kitchen, no a/c 250 sq.ft) it went for $2000 a month. Fruit $2 for an apple $6.99 for a quart of strawberries. $5.99 for a frozen dinner.

I'll tell you right now, people will buy their gun for $600 bucks and forgo the $800 training course. You've also got new immigrants who come from radically different cultures who don't understand the 2nd Amendment. I'm a lesbian and I lived on a block with a West Indian club and a lot of guys--being a lesbian is a really bad thing in the West Indies--would chase my girlfriend and I into our apartment screaming at us. One time four of us had to throw long industrial fluorescent bulbs at a guy to make him go away. If I had a gun would it make me feel safer? I'm not sure. There's always the potential that they'd've just picked us off out of hate.

On the other hand, martial law there always feels like a looming prospect. In a disaster I'd definitely want a gun. I'd prefer a hail of bullets to being rounded up like cattle. I was at the RNC protests.

I do miss bagels. But not that much.

Cheers.

"recent article showed that making $42K in NYC a year is like making $46K in urban Texas and like making 15K a year anywhere else. $60K is the start of working class. When I moved out of my studio apartment (no kitchen, no a/c 250 sq.ft) it went for $2000 a month. Fruit $2 for an apple $6.99 for a quart of strawberries. $5.99 for a frozen dinner.

I'll tell you right now, people will buy their gun for $600 bucks and forgo the $800 training course."

Personally, I don't much care about the training courses. WA doesn't require them. If NYC wants to require them, then there is an argument that THEY should have to pay for them or provide them cheap.

That's a pretty minor ancillary issue as far as I am concerned.

" You've also got new immigrants who come from radically different cultures who don't understand the 2nd Amendment. I'm a lesbian and I lived on a block with a West Indian club and a lot of guys--being a lesbian is a really bad thing in the West Indies--would chase my girlfriend and I into our apartment screaming at us. One time four of us had to throw long industrial fluorescent bulbs at a guy to make him go away. If I had a gun would it make me feel safer? I'm not sure. There's always the potential that they'd've just picked us off out of hate."

I'm not sure I grok your point. Carrying a gun is not a matter of feeling anything. It's a right and a responsibility. If you chose to carry it, you would have the ultimate responsibility as to choose whether to use it or not. I certainly think those that are subject to violent bias crimes should consider concealed carry, though.

"On the other hand, martial law there always feels like a looming prospect. In a disaster I'd definitely want a gun. I'd prefer a hail of bullets to being rounded up like cattle. I was at the RNC protests.

I do miss bagels. But not that much. "

Safeway bagels suck! I tried to explain to the baker that real bagels are baked AND boiled. And they are supposed to be chewy not cakelike. Sigh...

He said that East Coast pizza tastes different because of the minerals in the old piping. Must be something cause I won't even bother getting a slice down here.