Yet Another Wrong Headed Lawsuit

[Aguila Blanca]

Having worked hard to appear suspicious in an armed-and-loaded visit to the park, Embody cannot cry foul after park rangers, to say nothing of passers-by, took the bait.

This statement sounds modestly reasonable, under the circumstances.

And this decision could also be pertinent to a recent discussion about an officer who stopped a man walking along a sidewalk (videographer in tow) carrying a .22LR clone of ... some kind of "assault" rifle (the details escape me at the moment). The question was asked: did the officer violate the person's rights by stopping him and asking to examine the firearm to determine whether or not it was a fully automatic assault rifle. I was on the fence to a considerable degree, but I ultimately sided with the police officer, and this decision neatly sums up why I did so.

If you don't want to hook a shark, don't chum the waters.

 

[Tom Servo]

The only real utterance on the matter of the 2nd Amendment is this:

No court has held that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to bear arms within state parks. (...) Such a right may or may not exist, but the critical point for our purposes [emphasis mine] is that it has not been established—clearly or otherwise at this point.

So, at least no harm done.