Tip

SCOTUS cannot enforce their rulings - they have no mechanism to do so and it’s, simply put, not their job to do so.

What would his opponent have done? Probably an outright ban! Which do you prefer now? Pick your poison carefully….

I’m surprised less by the things he promised and hasn’t delivered than I am by the folks who, apparently, believed a President had the power to actually do the things he promised…. The problem lies not with the President - he can basically only sign or not sign what he’s presented. The problem lies with those who present the President with things to sign…

State ID is supposed to be equal to a DL so there shouldn’t be any problem

We have a few of those here…. Sigh….

Thanks - actually my questions are kinda FOID relevant. So here on PCS orders okay, but not okay if here on TAD, or other, orders. And even that’s irrelevant for dependents because they aren’t covered. Would seem they’d be barred from purchasing in-state and even possessing in-state might be a grey area as aren’t out of state residents required to establish residency and obtain FOID in a certain time period?

I don’t wanna derail this topic but I do have a semi-related question. Can a resident of one state go to a FFL in a different state, buy a handgun and take delivery there? My understanding is No they cannot. It must be transferred to a FFL in their state of residence. So, then that means for any military personnel currently stationed away from their home state they can only obtain a handgun by traveling back to their state of residence. They cannot buy one in the state where they are stationed and take delivery. Correct?

But did he define “quickly”???

Bible didn’t quite work at FBC Maryville several years ago - managed to stop the first round but not the subsequent …..

There are presently two parties. On one side of the aisle we see the politicians quite often question the party stance and actively disagree and vote accordingly. On the other side of the aisle we almost always see the politicians in lockstep and voting strictly party line with very few exceptions. You, as a voter, need to decide whether you’ll vote a party that allows dissension in the ranks or one that doesn’t. To claim to “vote the candidate and not the party” fails miserably in light of the two statements above. As to the accuracy of those statements one needs only look at the voting records on contentious for verification…

Since you are, apparently, no longer required to carry a physical card (an electronic copy is sufficient), I would check the portal and go by it. If it says it’s valid then CARRY ON. As to when, or if, you will hear back from ISP/FSB that’s anybody’s guess…..

Then they could establish a government provided insurance - but only issue it to those deemed to be “of moral character”…. Hey wait, weren’t we here before??

NOPE! Not at all - I said nothing, and insinuate nothing, about the shooting. Please don’t read your twist into something not said. I am simply questioning whether he was “legally” carrying…. Resisting IS a crime.

Lawful carry Carrying lawfully Valid Concealed carry Leagally carrying Lots of similar verbiage….. BUT, I know of no laws authorizing or even allowing the carry of a weapon during the commission of a crime. Does the commission of a crime invalidate “lawful carry” or “carrying leagally”?

Or perhaps sue IN, KY, MO, WI & IA for undercutting their exorbitant gas taxes and inciting the serfs, err citizens, of this fine state to participate in interstate transportation of gasoline - a tank full at a time…..