After all the crap that's gone down in MN since 2020, why does MN NOT have a law similar to this AL law? I'm not particularly crazy about it being on the books in my state because "shall not be infringed", I'm just a bit surprised the leftists in MN hadn't actually put something like this on the books at some point, but they haven't.

Most all concealed carry folks I know, know better than to put themselves in the position this guy did. Lets be fair:
Did he deserve to die? NO
Did he put himself in the middle of a bad situation while carrying, without ID no less? Absolutely.

I concur, it would be best if that were codified in state law.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
After all the crap that's gone down in MN since 2020, why does MN NOT have a law similar to this AL law? I'm not particularly crazy about it being on the books in my state because "shall not be infringed", I'm just a bit surprised the leftists in MN hadn't actually put something like this on the books at some point, but they haven't.

Most all concealed carry folks I know, know better than to put themselves in the position this guy did. Lets be fair:
Did he deserve to die? NO
Did he put himself in the middle of a bad situation while carrying, without ID no less? Absolutely.

Well because its completely unconstitutional?
Exercising a constitutionally protected right, while exercising another constitutionally protected right. Sure make that illegal.

What?

^^^ Good video, oddball.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
After all the crap that's gone down in MN since 2020, why does MN NOT have a law similar to this AL law? I'm not particularly crazy about it being on the books in my state because "shall not be infringed", I'm just a bit surprised the leftists in MN hadn't actually put something like this on the books at some point, but they haven't.

Most all concealed carry folks I know, know better than to put themselves in the position this guy did. Lets be fair:
Did he deserve to die? NO
Did he put himself in the middle of a bad situation while carrying, without ID no less? Absolutely.

Well because its completely unconstitutional?
Exercising a constitutionally protected right, while exercising another constitutionally protected right. Sure make that illegal.

What?

I'm not sure WHICH part of my post you misunderstood, but you did.

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:
Ran across a discussion from a former federal agent and now an attorney on LinkedIn. He had posted this image/caption.

That screenshot is from when that man has already been disarmed and shot by the ICE officer.

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Carrying a pistol and spare mags while walking your dog is one thing.

Carrying a pistol and spare mags while attending a riot is quite another.

What? Why would that limit my right to carry a firearm?

Are you joking?



.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
THAT might be considered premeditated.

Possessing a set of digital scales doesn’t make someone a drug dealer.

Possessing a set of digital scales while attempting to buy two keys of Columbian marching powder from an undercover cop is.

The details matter.

What are the odds?

^^^^^^^
Two useful idiots. Now past their “use-by” date.

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:
Ran across a discussion from a former federal agent and now an attorney on LinkedIn. He had posted this image/caption.

I was watching one video that claimed the guy was pinned that looked to me like the guy was fighting to stand up which is what I see in this picture as well. That’s not not a guy that’s pinned.

On the other hand, I don’t buy the heading for this picture either. This picture was taken after gray jacket guy grabbed Pretti’s gun.

At 2:07/08 in the video linked below, Pretti is on his knees when his gun is taken away. It’s after this point he starts to stand.
CNN video analysis

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Carrying a pistol and spare mags while walking your dog is one thing.

Carrying a pistol and spare mags while attending a riot is quite another.

What? Why would that limit my right to carry a firearm?

Are you joking?



.

I am not joking.

I can't tell much from the videos I've seen but I'm not going to study them either. Did he deserve to die? I don't know and it's not for me to judge. Mom always said "you made you're own bed, now you have to lie in it". Two people so far made their own beds and I think the people pulling the strings would love to see more sacrificial lambs if it helps them regain power. The people are too dumb to realize they're being used as pawns and their side doesn't care if they live or die.

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:

I am not joking.

Having the right to do something doesn't mean you should always do that thing. JT Jones gave a very good analogy above, but here is a more direct response:

Yes, Pretti had the right to carry a firearm, under normal circumstances.

However, if one is carrying a firearm while engaging in criminal activity (In this case, interfering/impeding with law enforcement officials engaged in the conduct of their legal duties.), then one has made the decision to engage in an armed battle with a law enforcement official.

When Pretti engaged in an armed conflict with federal law enforcement officials in the commission of their sworn duties, he essentially declared war on the United States.

Constitutional rights do not extend to criminal activity, and especially seditious activity.


.

People have a hard time recognizing insurrection. Our media has convinced many people it looks like a riot at the capital. Likewise, our media would like to convince you that fighting with law enforcement in the streets is 'protest'. I understand that insurrection is likely bad for business and it is possible for this 'movement' to spread to other blue cities, but we need to lock down Minneapolis, carry out the ICE mission, and then get out of the streets. We'll never win the PR battle in these cesspools that are full of foolish people willing to die to signal their virtue.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Carrying a pistol and spare mags while walking your dog is one thing.

Carrying a pistol and spare mags while attending a riot is quite another.

What? Why would that limit my right to carry a firearm?

Are you joking?

Pretty amazing, ain't it?

One of the above scenarios applies to the following, it is not difficult to understand. Unless one has the idiotic notion that Pretti was not breaking any laws.

quote:

Having the right to do something doesn't mean you should always do that thing. JT Jones gave a very good analogy above, but here is a more direct response:

Yes, Pretti had the right to carry a firearm, under normal circumstances.

However, if one is carrying a firearm while engaging in criminal activity (In this case, interfering/impeding with law enforcement officials engaged in the conduct of their legal duties.), then one has made the decision to engage in an armed battle with a law enforcement official.

Pretti engaged in an armed conflict with federal law enforcement officials in the commission of their sworn duties. He essentially declared war on the United States.

Constitutional rights do not extend to criminal activity, and especially seditious activity.

This is the best synopsis of the whole incident I have read and I completely agree!
Thank you for posting this.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

Pretty amazing, ain't it?

One of the above scenarios applies to the following, it is not difficult to understand. Unless one has the idiotic notion that Pretti was not breaking any laws.
...

I am amazed to see it on SigForum, from a long time member.

Thank for posting the Washington Law video above. That guy is always good and gets right to the heart of the matter.


.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
Pretti engaged in an armed conflict with federal law enforcement officials in the commission of their sworn duties. He essentially declared war on the United States.

This is an absurd statement. Just because someone is armed doesn't mean that they are engaged in "armed conflict" by any common definition. And the proclamation that this dude "essentially declared war on the United States" is farcical at best.