This Republican Senator Calls Three Black Men Peacefully Carrying Long Guns 'Mob Rule' - Reason.com
Once again, blacks openly carrying is "mob rule". Whites openly carrying in the Michigan capitol is crickets.
Neither group was breaking any laws by openly carrying long guns.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A Second Amendment hypocrite with a plan to undermine federalism
Scott Shackford| 6.25.2020 2:00 PM
This week Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) described a handful of protesters carrying guns in public as "mob rule."
Is Loeffler the rare conservative politician with a history of calling for expanded gun controls? That doesn't appear the case. Here's a tweet from her from January expressing appreciation for National Rifle Association President Carolyn Meadows:
Great to be back in Atlanta with @NRA President and fellow Georgian, Carolyn Meadows. Truly appreciate her work in Washington and around the country to protect and defend our 2nd Amendment Rights. #gapolpic.twitter.com/CAWS9FbEUk
— Senator Kelly Loeffler (@SenatorLoeffler) January 17, 2020
What could possibly make a pro-gun-rights senator suddenly take such a dim view of citizens' rights to bear arms? Watch this Wednesday segment from the Fox show America's Newsroom, and the answer becomes apparent pretty quickly:
Joined @edhenry on @AmericaNewsroom to discuss my efforts to end the defund the police movement & pass the #JusticeAct. Enough with the political games from Democrats in Washington. Americans deserve better. #gapol#gasenpic.twitter.com/uopR5jiJHU
— Kelly Loeffler (@KLoeffler) June 24, 2020
As you can see, Fox interviewed Loeffler amid a montage of young, armed black people protesting police abuse in Atlanta, where a cop recently shot and killed Rayshard Brooks. Another Fox host, Sean Hannity, reported on Tuesday that there were "at least three men brandishing long guns" near the Wendy's where the incident happened.
Hannity, Fox, and Loeffler all represented this as evidence of the dangers of defunding police. Indeed, one young man with a gun (who seemed perfectly polite and respectful) told Fox he was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun because he didn't believe police officers would protect him, adding that cops were not going to be "allowed" in this space. Asked what he'd do if police rolled up and ordered him to drop his weapon, the man insisted he had the legal right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution to bear arms: "And at no point will I allow my right to be disturbed." Good for him!
Carrying long guns in public is legal in Georgia, by the way (with exceptions for a few places like courts and schools). Fox does not actually accuse any of these men of breaking any laws. But they clearly intend viewers to see these men as a threat—and not just because they have put up barricades and hope to shut out the police, but because they're bearing arms. By contrast, when a predominantly white group of protesters showed up at Michigan's capitol in April to protest the state's COVID-19 rules, Fox's coverage was reasonably neutral and factual, giving voice to critics but pointing out that guns were legally allowed in the state Capitol building.
Loeffler isn't just a hypocrite about gun rights. She's trying to undermine another value conservatives are supposed to believe in: federalism. The senator is introducing legislation that would reduce federal transportation funding from states and municipalities that cut funding to law enforcement, unless they can show a "clear budgetary need." The idea that the states and cities should have to get permission from the U.S. government to make a budget decision is, of course, absolutely anathema to local rule. It's up to a community's citizens to determine how much money their police department should receive—not the U.S. Senate or the Department of Transportation.
Bonus video: ReasonTV on the importance of defending open carry rights in black communities to defend civil rights:
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
85 visitors
Very interesting slant.
Don't see what is wrong with that statement?
Funny, the left went apoplectic when it was armed right wingers trying to hold federal land and keep federal and state officers out. Now, you have an armed African American state that he will not allow police onto private property? Does he own the Wendy's store that was burned down? Did he have permission from the store owner to be there? Seems the left thinks they can move in and hold both private and public property whenever the hell they want.
Yes, he does, up until the time he breaks the law. Which barring people from property is. Unless he is the owner of said Wendy's or has permission to be there from the owner.
Yes, the hypocrisy is quite glaring. On the left.
And on the right. Guess you missed the part about Loeffler not speaking out about the whites openly carrying at the Michigan capitol.
Were they threatening anyone at the Michigan capital? Were they threatening police? Were they stopping anyone from going anywhere or reaching anywhere? No, no they weren't. They had a proper permit to protest. There were police there monitoring them.
Epic fucking fail! But you already knew that!
Next time try an apples to apples comparison like the right wingers I used the held federal land under gun point; and look at the way they were treated by both the federal government and law enforcement.
A bigger false equivalence i have never seen.
1.) The protestors at the Michigan capital were exercising their right 100% legally. These Atlanta guys were not
2.) The Atlanta protestors were attempting to "protect" private property. Not legal. The Michigan guys weren't trying to protect anything.
3.) Unlike the Michigan protestors, the Atlanta protestors stated their goal was to keep law enforcement out. Not legal
4.) One is public property, legal. The other is private property, illegal as i'm sure the owner of the burnt down Wendys didn't ask for help as his business was already burned to the ground.
Honestly, media people who put crap like this out have zero shame and give journalism a shitty name.
You might want to check the laws before commenting on them. Open carry in Georgia is legal and they accept licenses from other state.
Come on Steve..... Open carry is only for white people, cause only white people care about and are covered by the 2nd.
Ok, I give. You're right. The only 'mobs' white people make are at Walmart on Black Friday.
BTW..... the Reason.TV video was spot on. Glad you posted it.
You are quite welcome.
You might want to read the entire post. I wasn’t commenting on the legality of open carry. Read it again.
The above is what you said. The statute says they can. And no, it didn't take me but a few seconds to find the statute.
Are you really having trouble grasping the entirety of what I’ve said or is this just a game you are playing? Let’s see if I can simplify it for you.
Michigan protestors were on public property. Legal. Atlanta protestors were on private property. Not legal unless requested by owners of private property.
Michigan protestors were not trying to keep anyone out. Legal. Atlanta protestors said their purpose was to keep law enforcement out. Not legal
so are you done playing word games yet?
I have no problem at all understanding your words. I do have a problem with your not posting anything that supports your position other than your own words. Point me to a statute or case law that supports your position.
I'm not going to waste my time showing you well know law. Everything i've posted is well known fact to even the most sophomoric of intellects. Well .... with the exception of if the owner asked for the protection, which as stated i highly doubt since there was nothing there left to protect. It was already all burned down by the mob.
Nah, you just want to play word games and argue, as you've got no valid point.
No, I'm playing statute games. If you wish to discuss the legality or illegality of an act, you should know the relevant statutes. Since you obviously don't know the law of Georgia, your argument is null and void.
I posted the statute showing they have the absolute right to carry their weapons. You give nothing but bloviation in return.
You are the one playing word games.
PRACTICES
PART 3 - CARRYING AND POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
§ 16-11-126 - Possession and carrying a concealed weapon; penalty for violating licensing requirement
O.C.G.A. 16-11-126 (2010)
16-11-126. Possession and carrying a concealed weapon; penalty for violating licensing requirement
(a) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a weapon or long gun on his or her property or inside his or her home, motor vehicle, or place of business without a valid weapons carry license.
(b) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a long gun without a valid weapons carry license, provided that if the long gun is loaded, it shall only be carried in an open and fully exposed manner.
(c) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry any handgun provided that it is enclosed in a case and unloaded.
(d) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun who is eligible for a weapons carry license may transport a handgun or long gun in any private passenger motor vehicle; provided, however, that private property owners or persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such property shall have the right to forbid possession of a weapon or long gun on their property, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135.
(e) Any person licensed to carry a handgun or weapon in any other state whose laws recognize and give effect to a license issued pursuant to this part shall be authorized to carry a weapon in this state, but only while the licensee is not a resident of this state; provided, however, that such licensee shall carry the weapon in compliance with the laws of this state.
Hope you didn’t waste too much time looking that up since as noted above it wasn’t what I was commenting on.
And the folks trying to make this about race, that’s all on them. Never once claimed minorities couldn’t own weapons legally, in fact I encourage it.
So that’s another massive fail there ...
Read the statement from your own damn article. No one is arguing against the moron's right to open carry.
What everyone is arguing is that he does not have the right to bar anyone, especially the police, from public or private property. Unless you can prove he had the owner's permission to be there, or is the owner himself; then he is violating the law!
Guess the left doesn't feel the need to abide by the law and openly supports criminals. What a shock!
That's your opinion, not necessarily fact. Point me to a statute or case law. Do some research to support your position. Until such time, I consider your opinion to be asinine and without thought.