Posted on Jun 3, 2015
What are your thoughts on this... Apparently his actions are Legal!
5.72K
15
22
1
1
0
I wanted to get your thoughts on this post. I would diffently be watching him the entire time he was in the area. Doesn't this open the door to many others doing the same? How will security handle someone that looks very suspicious that's doing the same thing!
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/national/man-raises-eyebrows-carrying-gun-through-atlanta-a/nmTJ2/
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/national/man-raises-eyebrows-carrying-gun-through-atlanta-a/nmTJ2/
Security
Atlanta
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
2
2
0
While I do not agree with the open carry movement, it's absolutely his right to do so under Georgia law. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I won't defend his right to open carry, just as I will defend someone's right to stand on the flag. As the subject said in the story, "If we don't exercise our rights, the government won't hesitate to take them away.
(2)
(0)
1SG Jason Smith
Stomping on the Flag is NOT a right. It is actually in Federal statues that you cannot burn, deface or trample on the U.S. flag
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
1SG Jason Smith, you are incorrect. Desecration of the flag is protected under the 1st Amendment. While the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (which I assume you are referring to) intended to make flag desecration illegal, the US Supreme Court ruled (5-4) in United States v. Eichman (1990) desecration is protected.
In the final paragraphs of the opinion (the winning side), Justice Brennan wrote, "We are aware that desecration of the flag is deeply offensive to many. But the same might be said, for example, of virulent ethnic and religious epithets, see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), vulgar repudiations of the draft, see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), and scurrilous caricatures, see Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
"Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering. The judgments are
Affirmed."
As I stated, while I do not agree with, nor condone, desecration of the flag, I will not deny someone their right to do so in protest.
In the final paragraphs of the opinion (the winning side), Justice Brennan wrote, "We are aware that desecration of the flag is deeply offensive to many. But the same might be said, for example, of virulent ethnic and religious epithets, see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), vulgar repudiations of the draft, see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), and scurrilous caricatures, see Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
"Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering. The judgments are
Affirmed."
As I stated, while I do not agree with, nor condone, desecration of the flag, I will not deny someone their right to do so in protest.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I just have to question one thing. A 100 rd mag? Really? I support open carry, have a conceal carry license, but what are you trying to protect with a 100 rd mag?
(1)
(0)
SA Harold Hansmann
Might be more than 1 Isis character in the area and he wants to make sure he can defend against them and that they can't be revived by medical.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google