... and the Ninth Circus.
According to the latest ruling, it's perfectly fine to restrict the carrying of handguns in public to those who:
- have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense
- work with valuables or large amounts of money
Now, just a doggone minute, here.
Last I heard, the basic rules for use of force held that deadly force was only acceptable for defending oneself or another person, and not for defending property.
But it makes perfect sense to restrict the means of defense to those who need to defend property, because... um... hello?
Underlying moral philosophy, anyone?
Comments