• Cheems@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        56
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think it’s necessarily support. But if actions have no consequences then there’s no reason not to? Not that it’s a good argument but it’s apparently reality

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Clearly. I guess this is the country now. Supreme Court rulings are optional unless the President decides to send in troops to enforce it.

    • SheeEttin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      No, this is consistent with Bruen. The meat of Bruen was that it prohibited subjective “suitability” criteria in permitting. You’re only allowed to use objective criteria, like having training or not having a criminal record. States can still require permits for gun ownership.

      This guy is an idiot and it was only a matter of time before he went to prison, deservedly. I highly doubt that he was carrying for any reasonable purpose.