I mean it. But there are some juicy morsels worth highlighting.
Short of it, Wisconsin, one of the last holdouts of states that bar bearing of arms, recently had the District Attorney for Jackson County flatly state that his office will no longer … hell, just read this
This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin’s current laws unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes: Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles; Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms; Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings; Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and, Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.
This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin’s current laws unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes:
Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles; Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms; Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings; Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and, Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.
WOW. Someone who understands rights and is more than happy to not pester the populace when they decide to exercise them.
Then there's this part
Put it another way: Does preventing the barkeep from protecting herself when she carries the bank bag home from the tavern make sense? Not here, not anymore. That’s not an American value; it puts concern for the criminal’s welfare ahead of the barkeeper’s right to self-defense.
Emphasis mine. Progressives care more about the thief than the citizen when they claim disarmament is required.
The fact is, criminals don’t pay attention to gun laws, only we good folks do. After 15 years of criminal law practice, I can state positively that when criminals resolve to harm someone, no law will stop them. These so-called “public safety” laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over.
You see that, UBU52? How many more times must this unassailable fact be repeated and proven before you and your ilk realize that no amount of laws placed upon the backs of the law abiding will prevent the criminals from plying their trade and in fact, only make their efforts easier knowing their victims will not be able to fight back effectively?
We are winning, slowly but surely, and this is because logic, reason, and morality are on our side.