this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024

353 points (97.3% liked)

News

23014 readers

2 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

353

Federal judge rules ban on firearms in post offices unconstitutional (thehill.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

181 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal judge in Florida ruled a U.S. law that prohibits people from having firearms in post offices to be unconstitutional, the latest court decision declaring gun restrictions violate the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” that expanded gun rights. The 2022 ruling recognized the individual’s right to bear a handgun in public for self-defense.

The judge shared her decision in the indictment that charged Emmanuel Ayala, U.S. Postal Service truck driver, with illegal possession of a firearm in a federal building.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

OK, let's roll it back.

Now I can't carry in a Post Office. Sound good?

Now how do you propose to enforce that law? Perhaps a sign on the door saying, "No bad guys allowed."

So weird seeing comments like yours. Let me quote Sir Terry Pratchett, wild conservative (LMAO having wrote that...)

Confiscate all weapons, and crime would go down. It made sense. It would have worked, too, if only there had been enough coppers -- say, three per citizen.

Amazingly, quite a few weapons were handed in. The flaw, though, was one that had somehow managed to escape Swing, and it was this: criminals don't obey the law. It's more or less a requirement for the job. They had no particular interest in making the streets safer for anyone except themselves. And they couldn't believe what was happening. It was like Hogswatch every day.

Some citizens took the not-unreasonable view that something had gone a bit askew if only naughty people were carrying arms. And they got arrested in large numbers.

And from another great book of his:

A sign attached to the tower read: “Dijabringabeeralong: Check your Weapons.” “Yep, still got all mine, no worries,” said Mad.

For those unfamiliar, Pratchett was so liberal, he was writing about trans rights before you kids ever heard those words put together.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Uhhhhhh, who put a bug up your bonnet?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Just another person confused about the difference between seeing "how things are" and rationalizing it as "how things have to be." Nevermind a simple look at the mass shootings by country correlate very well with reasonable gun control laws.

https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation (see comparison)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

No need to bring Sir Terry Pratchett into this.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

So.... your source to back up your point is an excerpt from a fictional book written by someone who's expertise is in writing fiction?

Personally, I try not to take the word of someone who is not an expert, or at least versed in that particular area. Just because Pratchett was very a progressive writer doesn't mean his opinions on gun control should be taken for anything more than his own personal position.

And if we're just going to cite his fiction as his opinion, we have to assume he was also pro-police violence. I don't know how much Discworld you've red, but even as Vimes progressed as a character and got better in a lot of ways, he always ended up resolving the issue by skirting the actual law and bending the rules to fit his purpose. Often he would espouse how much easier his job and the city would be if he wasn't restricted by the law. Not everyone else, they still need to follow the law, but Sam Vimes knows better. There were even times when Pratchett would start to push back on that idea like he was going to have Vimes actually understand that police aren't special and should be as answerable to the law as anyone... then the conflict would always be resolved by Vimes going outside the law and taking it into his own hands. He never learned that lesson. Quite the opposite actually.

So for those unfamiliar, Pratchett was so conservative, he was writing about rogue cops taking the law into their own hands before you kids ever heard those words put together.