Monday, November 7, 2022

Florida Blind Man Falsely Arrest Over Openly Carried Gun (Actually Cane) © 2022 Phillip Evans

Once Deputy Gohdy verified the cane was not a firearm, the "reasonable, articulable suspicion" basis for the initial detainment vaporized. Mr. Hodges should have immediately been free to go. However, the deputy, admitting to be a "tyrant", pressed the issue as well as another deputy and demanded that Mr. Hodges identify himself.

When he politely refused, as well as properly asserted his right to not be searched, they cuffed him and rifled through his papers anyway, and took him to jail.

This incident is wrong on so many levels. Now that the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is starting to mean what it says, due to Justice Thomas' brilliant opinion in Bruen, the handful of states that generally ban the open carry of firearms like Florida, are going to either repeal the ban, or have it ruled as unconstitutional. Voluntarily or kicking and screaming it will happen, and soon.

Look, I get it that most citizens who legally carry would never carry openly. But I'm at least hopeful that no one who claims to be a genuine supporter of our rights would agree to put someone behind bars for peacefully carrying a holstered, visible pistol. You might not think it a good idea, but you choose to live and let live, right?

Folks, this is Gov. Ron DeSantis' state, the one who promised to sign "Constitutional Carry" if a bill landed on his desk, but who has never publicly called for it in earnest to get to his desk. See the catch?

The general ban on open carry is just one. Others are the many enumerated off-limits places, as well as a slew of unenumerated off-limits places where a private entity can temporarily rent, lease, or have a permitted event on public property used for the general public, and can ban firearms carry on your tax-payer owned property. That's a big one, and should be fixed pronto.

Thursday, November 3, 2022

Zoo Atlanta Officials: LIE-ons, Tigers, And Bear-ers, Oh My! © 2022 Phillip Evans

Zoo Atlanta Photo (Public Domain)

I believe the very first sentence is a lie. I'm near 100% certain Zoo Officials consulted with legal resources at the City of Atlanta, and was told flat out they had zero legal grounds, otherwise the City would have gotten behind them and provided at least a little support for their position, but there was none forthcoming.

And if they really believed their legal position was sound, why did they fold so quickly on Oct. 28th? No one at all that I know of threatened any legal action. I certainly did not threaten to sue them, but I did email them on Oct. 20th that it could cost them a lawsuit if they violated anyone's rights. They were certainly free to make a knowledgeable determination as to how to avoid doing such. 

Another odd thing about their statement - If they really believed that lawful carry of weapons was a threat to visitors, they certainly placed avoiding "distraction" and "expense of litigation" at a higher priority than your safety, and it didn't take them long to reach that decision.

Perhaps they truly don't believe lawfully carried weapons are an issue at the Zoo. Such a sentiment is merely an excuse to support their political position of gun control. After all, their official policy since sometime in 2016 until Sept. 1st, 2022 was to ALLOW lawfully carried weapons, with zero problems at all by lawful carriers during that time.

What was the impetus for their Sept. 1st renewed gun ban this year? It was an attempt to piggyback onto the Atlanta Botanical Garden's case in it being decided that it possessed an "estate for years" type lease which gave it ownership rights.

Apparently, Zoo Officials were unable to realize that the Zoo possesses no lease at all for the publicly owned property inside Grant Park. The Atlanta-Fulton County Recreation Authority, a government entity, holds the lease. Some folks just don't know how to pay attention to details, and details often matter.

I've taken my family to visit Zoo Atlanta at least three times in years past, and wore my visibly holstered pistol on my hip, with no issues at all. No one seemed to bat an eye, not even the international visitors. Once, a member of Zoo Security asked to see my license to carry, and I politely provided it. Now, anyone who qualifies for a license is considered a lawful carrier. They are no longer required to do the paperwork and pay a fee to exercise their Second Amendment Rights in public, as it should be.

Some of the comments on this story out on the web are rather humorous. Some are saying because of the Zoo's capitulation, they are never going back. Did they not know the Zoo allowed weapons carry from 2016? Did they also not know the Zoo has never had metal detectors for general admission? 

Others are incredulous that anyone would need a gun at a zoo. I suppose one could make that same empty argument regarding any place that is supposed to be safe. Unfortunately, criminals don't care whether a park, bike trail, zoo, restaurant, theater, library, or school is supposed to safe. When bad guys make appointments, I'll know when I can leave my gun at home. But if I'm on the road traveling to the zoo, I'll be armed, and I won't be leaving my gun in the zoo's parking lot to be potentially stolen. People also sometimes get attacked walking in parking lots.

As for the racist comments that gun rights advocates are only doing this because of criminals who are Black, that's a load of garbage. In several of my blog articles I have made it clear that Black citizens should be armed for their protection. Percentage-wise they are victims of violent crime more than non-Blacks. I have seen Blacks carrying a gun on their hip in the open just like me, and felt safe around them, and have thanked them in person.

A human right such as armed self-defense belongs to us all equally, regardless of race. I wish Black Democrat politicians would believe that too, instead of trying to disarm their own people when they are at just as much or more risk from being harmed by crime than others.

Friday, October 28, 2022

Zoo Atlanta To Demand Your Weapons Carry License? © 2022 Phillip Evans

I continue to be astonished at the incorrect information Zoo Officials continue to make public. They should be ashamed of embarrassing Ms. Davis with the task of repeating such drivel.

First of all, Georgia does not have a "permit", it is a "weapons carry license".

Finally, even if a license were still required to carry a handgun in public, the Zoo would still lack the legal authority to demand to see anyone's license.

They certainly may politely ask to view your weapons license if you happen to carry openly, and you may politely decline to answer, with no actionable consequences against you for your refusal, such as kicking you off the property, or anything else.

So just wish them a nice day and go on about your visit. You don't have to show them anything other than your ticket or membership card.

The irony in all this flip-flop saga of banning, allowing, then banning again and once again allowing weapons, is that the Zoo has never effectively banned weapons in the first place. Never any metal detectors to my knowledge, although they might have used them in the past for special events, I don't know. But in general weapons have always been on Zoo property carried by lawful and sometimes unlawful carriers, and they know that.

Neither a paper policy nor a prohibition on a website can keep anyone safe. Real safety lies in the ability of people to keep themselves safe from armed criminals, not in virtue signaling or in giving lip service to safety. Feel-goods for the sheep do not a reality make.

Thursday, October 27, 2022

Banning Weapons - Mystery Of The Public or Private Property Question © 2022 Phillip Evans

Like most anyone, I love a good mystery, but only on TV as I don't have much time or patience for reading a large novel. 

However, when it comes to where I can carry a firearm or other lawful weapon on privately leased, but publicly owned property used by the public, I want it cut and dry every time.

Open Clipart Image of Detective Used, Text Mine

Georgia's HB60 that became law July 1st, 2014 was intended to be the cure for this mystery. The Georgia General Assembly logically inserted the word "private" into the law to clarify that only privately owned property owners could blanket-wise ban all weapons from their property.

When the Atlanta Botanical Garden (publicly owned property, but privately leased) raised its hackles at this provision and refused to follow it, Georgia Carry (now and I filed suit against the Garden.

What followed was a mixed bag of legal goods.

The Georgia Supreme Court gave us a general victory of sorts in Oct. 2019 when it ruled that those in control of privately leased public property could not ban weapons IF it merely held a "usufruct" (to use and enjoy) type lease, but that they could if they held an "estate for years" (ownership rights during the lease term) type lease.

The Garden's lease type was litigated and determined to be an "estate for years" on Jan. 31st, 2022 by the Georgia Court of Appeals. But being a property owner now means you get to pay property tax. Be careful what you wish for!

Now another entity, Zoo Atlanta (located on public property), wants on the Garden bandwagon and Sept. 1st, 2022 reinstated its blanket weapons ban (except for law enforcement), after following state law for the last few years. However, the Zoo is not in possession of the property's leasehold interest. The Atlanta-Fulton County Recreation Authority (a government entity) holds it, so this should be a slam-dunk for us hopefully not requiring court action.

Although a lease with a length term exceeding five years is presumed to be an "estate for years", that is not the only factor to consider. Conditions in the lease may determine even a 50 year lease to be a "usufruct".

So do we need to litigate potentially hundreds or even more leases around the state to get to the bottom of whether those publicly owned properties used by the public, but privately leased, can ban legally carried weapons? What a chore that would be!

Here's the fix: REQUIRE by law that any government entity that leases public property to a private entity explicitly specifies in the lease whether the lease grants an estate for years or is merely a usufruct.

Not only would this benefit citizens who wish to protect their right to carry on their tax-payer owned public property, but it would also benefit government in determining whether these large private entities should be paying their fair share of property tax.

It's notable that the City of Atlanta specified in their lease contract with the Garden that the Garden was not to pay property tax. One would think that meant the City was signaling the lease was merely a usufruct, as those by law are not taxable.

The Georgia Court of Appeals, beyond belief, instead took this to mean that even if the City unlawfully granted the Garden a tax exemption, it still had an estate for years. Talk about upside down logic, or total lack thereof.

Hopefully, our Georgia General Assembly will once again take action and put final closure to this issue once and for all. 

Our right to be armed to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe from criminals on public, tax-payer owned property should not be held hostage by lease documents of a type we do not clearly know, that we should be burdened with the task of suing in order to find out.

Government shenanigans where leases are written with a wink and a nod letting the lessees assumedly get to have "private property" rights to ban weapons carried by lawful citizens, but not have to pay property tax is unfair and immoral, and should be immediately stopped.

Regardless of how one feels about citizens carrying guns in public, at least we can all agree that businesses should pay their fair share of the tax burden. How many millions of dollars have you and I had to pay in property tax because certain businesses got an unlawful free ride out of paying their property taxes?

Friday, October 21, 2022

Atlanta Botanical Garden - Tax Man Cometh? © 2022 Phillip Evans

The Atlanta Botanical Garden won a court case Jan. 1st, 2022 which allows it to ban weapons on its property that is leased from the City of Atlanta. Georgia Carry (now GA2A) and I were plaintiffs in the case

The Court's ruling means that the Garden is and has been a property owner for several years, and like all other property owners in the State of Georgia per the Georgia Constitution, it is required to pay property tax unless it receives an exception granted in accordance with state law. And there is a new case over taxes filed by a resident of Atlanta and a resident of Fulton County for these governments' failures to collect property tax from the Garden. (1)

Has the Garden made application for any exemption? 

I'm guessing not, since during the lawsuit originally filed in 2014, they relied on the City of Atlanta's stipulation in their lease agreement that they do not have to pay property tax. 

To date, neither the City nor Fulton County has ever collected property tax from the Garden, and the Fulton County Tax Assessor website continues to list the Garden as PUBLIC, not private property, in spite of the Georgia Court of Appeals ruling making it private property.

Fulton County Property Classification: E1 = Public Property, with Land Use Code 610 (Recreation/Health)

The Georgia Department of Revenue's 2022 Opening Session PowerPoint Presentation highlights some of the facts of the case starting at slide 75:

While not giving an opinion whether the Garden should pay AVT (ad valorem tax) on the property, the report is indicative that the GA DOR is keenly aware of the issue, as it should be. And I'm sure they are keeping a sharp eye on further developments.

Additionally, will the fact that the Garden is now a private property owner have any impact on its tax filings with the IRS? Very possibly, especially if the IRS views the non-payment of property tax on private property as taxable income.

Were the Garden to be billed for all the back property taxes it owes, it could amount to over $100 million dollars - money which other property owners in Atlanta and Fulton County have had to pay to make up for the difference while the Garden has not been paying its share of the government mandated burden.

The City of Atlanta continues to pour millions of tax-payer dollars into the Garden property, and yet the property which is part of Piedmont Park is supposedly "private property"? Unreal.

The GA Court of Appeals mind-boggedly did not view it as a troublesome issue to rule that the Garden possessed an estate for years and at the same time not pay property tax, so it would not surprise me if it were to rule in favor of the Garden in regard to property taxes in the new lawsuit if it gets to that level.

However, the Georgia Supreme Court may not look kindly on such a flagrant violation of the Georgia Constitution. Were the Garden to be allowed an unfair pass on paying its fair share, other large property owners would come forward wanting the same treatment, with the mom and pop businesses and homeowners stuck with the shaft to make up the shortfall.

Should the Garden see the writing on the wall, it may quickly work with the City of Atlanta to rewrite their lease contract to convert it to a "usufruct" (a license to use and enjoy), which by law is not subject to property tax, but then the Garden could not ban lawfully carried weapons. 

Would doing that shield the Garden from back property taxes? I don't see how, as it would be a new contract going forward. 

The Garden, in its zeal to ban lawful carriers being armed while visiting, may have gotten itself wedged between a rock and a hard place in the sense that it may have to pay millions of dollars in tax arrears regardless if its lease is changed or not. The irony is that firearms and other weapons are still getting into the Garden every single day, as good citizens primarily carry concealed, and there are no metal detectors or searches upon entry.

So the reality is that all this time and expense the Garden has involved itself with, has been to ban a fraction of lawful carriers who choose to openly carry a visibly holstered pistol on their side.

The issue isn't about safety from the Garden's point of view - they KNOW guns get in on a regular basis. It is about appearance only. And even that is for nothing. Other public venues such as Stone Mountain Park, with many more visitors and from all over the world, has virtually daily sightings of citizens openly carrying a handgun, with no impact on revenue and no other issues as a result.

If you value your Second Amendment Rights and desire that laws are passed which honor and promote the right to keep and bear arms, then become a member of GA2A, the only statewide organization with a proven track record of success in working with the Georgia General Assembly to further our self-defense liberties.

(1) The City of Atlanta and Fulton County are being sued by two private citizens over the Atlanta Botanical Garden getting an unlawful pass to not pay property taxes as a property owner, as the Court of Appeals ruled this year that the Garden has an "estate for years" type lease, meaning certain property ownership rights, such as the ability to ban weapons. Fulton Superior Court Case Number: 2022cv368333. Create an account on their website to search for the case.

(2) An Estate for Years is a grant of “the right to use the property in as absolute a manner as may be done with a greater estate, provided that the property or the person who is entitled to the remainder or reversion interest is not injured by such use.” O.C.G.A. § 44-6-103.

Thursday, October 20, 2022

Zoo Atlanta Weapons Policy Flip-Flop © 2022 Phillip Evans

Major Updates Below!

As recently as June 23rd, 2022 (per the Wayback Machine Archive) the page at stated with regards to prohibited items: 

"Weapons of any kind except as permitted by law", meaning that lawfully carried weapons were permitted, which aligns with state law. This wording had been used since 2014, after HB60 took effect.

Image by Author using Public Domain Material

That same page now reads:

"Weapons of all types are prohibited inside Zoo Atlanta", a blanket prohibition, which goes back to the pre-2014 language.

Yesterday I spoke with a member of their security office who told me the policy change was a result of a change in the law, and when I questioned further, the gentleman told me it was a "city law". Searching for a new city ordinance did not turn up anything.

Oddly enough, a different page on the Zoo's site currently has wording similar to the first one above:  "Weapons, except as permitted by law"

So now there seems to be conflicting messages on the site.

Regardless, the gentleman at the Zoo's security office was clear that they intend to enforce a no-weapons policy for everyone except law-enforcement.

Fast forward to today, Oct. 20th, 2022 - A Mr. Gray (if I heard his name correctly) phoned me from the Zoo. He confirmed the policy change occurred Sept. 1st.

I explained to him that the ruling applied to the entire state, in the sense that any property determined to have ownership rights via an "estate for years" type lease can ban weapons, but that the Zoo could only ban weapons if they had such a lease, and asked him if the Zoo Officials has made that claim. He side-stepped that question and promised to have someone else call me back.

Either that is the Zoo's position, that they claim to have an "estate for years" type lease, or they simply misunderstood the Court's ruling entirely and believe that they can do what the Atlanta Botanical Garden can, just because.

This blog article will be updated as more information is gathered.


Here is the complete email:

Dear Zoo Officials,

I've learned that on Sept. 1st this year, you implemented a blanket policy banning all weapons carry, except by law enforcement.

Is it your position that your lease with the Fulton County Government (removed City of Atlanta for the pasted text here, misspoke in the email) is of the type known as an "estate for years", which grants you certain ownership rights, such as the right to ban weapons? Are you sure you'd like to be a property owner subject to paying property taxes?

Are you aware that the leasehold interest of the Zoo Property is assigned to the Atlanta Fulton County Recreation Authority? AFCRA has oversight over Zoo operations, including a vote on major Zoo contracts.

What all does this mean? It means your interest in the property is merely a "usufruct", and not an "estate for years", meaning you lack the authority to ban legally carried weapons by any lawful citizen, per your lease and per the Oct. 2019 ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court in Georgia Carry v. Atlanta Botanical Garden regarding usufructs and estate for years pertaining to the banning of weapons on publicly owned property.

The Atlanta Botanical Garden can ban guns because their lease was determined this year to be an "estate for years". Your lease is not possible to be ruled as such, due to the facts I outlined above. Therefore, you do not get to do what the Garden can, just because you want to. There has to be a legal basis for it, and there is none.

I suggest you check with your attorneys quickly on this matter, for if you violate the rights of a lawful citizen carrying a legal weapon at the Zoo you risk a costly lawsuit.

The Atlanta Police Department is well aware of state law on this, and they carefully follow it. They will not enforce your weapons ban. Ask them if you do not believe me.

It seems that you all did not think this through very well, nor had a clear understanding of the surrounding court cases. You simply knee-jerked latched onto what you saw as an opportunity (in your own minds) to go back to the pre-2014 blanket policy banning weapons. 

This makes it clear you do not respect the Second Amendment nor do you regard the ability of moms and dads to be armed for the safety of their families when traveling to and from the Zoo or walking from or to their vehicles at the Zoo in a neighborhood beset with crime. You should be ashamed of your liberty hating agenda.

Best regards,

Phillip Evans


We do not have a "permit", it is a carry license, and with recent legislation no longer needed for a lawful carrier to carry a weapon in public.

Friday, October 7, 2022

Guns at Pride Festival in Piedmont Park Atlanta © 2022 Phillip Evans

Executive Director Fergerson correctly stated, "People are allowed to lawfully carry." So kudos to her for knowing and being willing to follow state law.

She gave a reasonable-sounding argument for her disarmament request: "We don't believe that crowds, especially when there's drinking and celebrating, mix with a lot of guns so we'd like everybody to leave them at home." Notwithstanding guns have been lawfully carried at the festival for years with no issues.

Security is to be provided by unarmed volunteers, unarmed private security, and Atlanta Police (with help from other agencies). 

So if no one is armed except police and bad guys, who will ignore any disarmament requests, is this the perfect picture of safety?

Let's think about this for a moment. What about folks traveling to and from the festival, whether in their vehicle, on MARTA, or on foot? Will festival security measures keep them safe while traveling? Will a gun left at home protect them while traveling? The Captain Obvious answer is NO to both.

And why the complete trust and reliance on the police? Does Atlanta Police have a stellar record in the Gay community? Anyone recall the 2009 Eagle Bar incident? Is all forgiven now? Don't get me wrong, most police are good people, but things don't always work out for the best when police and criminals are the only ones armed.

Why does Ms. Fergerson not trust gay people to be responsibly armed in the presence of alcohol and crowds? Is there an epidemic of gay folks drunkenly shooting into crowds? If not, then why the need for any such polite request?

Though I don't speak for GA2A in my article here, GA2A (formerly Georgia Carry) apparently trusts gay people to carry guns in festivals at Piedmont Park. In fact, for years they've had a booth there for the festival to give attendees information on their organization which fights for their right of armed self-protection.

And why shouldn't gays be armed? They are often victimized by criminals who beat, rape, rob, and murder them. It's high time that they get armed, trained, and prepared to defend themselves. And they should be armed for their safety even at festivals. 

If a straight person such as myself can advocate for gays to be lawfully armed wherever they go, why can't the Executive Director of the Atlanta Pride Festival do the same?

The Black community also has a similar issue in that most Black leaders and politicians consistently side with White Democrats to push for gun bans in as many public areas as possible, as well as banning the possession of certain types of guns. Apparently, they don't trust Blacks to be responsibly armed either, in public places.

Perhaps both of these cases is an example of where the leadership doesn't speak for the majority makeup of the membership?

Are Blacks and Gays to be unarmed sheep because the police do such a great job protecting them?

According to straight, White Democrats, Gays and Blacks shouldn't be armed in public. Where do the elites even in these same demographics obtain the gall to demand that they disarm themselves and only trust the police for their safety? Cognitive Dissonance?

Wednesday, August 31, 2022

Illegal Government Censorship of Citizens on Facebook © 2022 Phillip Evans

The City of South Fulton, Georgia has a main Facebook page, and each district has its own official government page as well. The evening of August 30th, 2022, Councilwoman Helen Z. Willis blocked me from seeing her District 3 page at:

City of South Fulton Seal
Fair Use

My perceived offense? I posted an on-topic and benign comment on the City's new gun ordinance she had sponsored. Although she deleted my comment, I was able to reproduce it entirely almost word for word, as follows:

"There are existing state laws that cover waving about a firearm dangerously, as well as covering pointing a gun at another without justification. The ordinance adds no additional substance to state law.

Also, if Section 2 passed, that is a violation of state preemption, since guns cannot be banned in government buildings (schools and courthouses excepted), unless there is weapons screening at the entrance. The ordinance does not mention screening, and therefore is null and void.

And, the news reporting on handling a gun was stupid, as it is legal in Georgia to carry a firearm in your hand."

That was it. The strongest word I used was "stupid", which was not even directed toward her. This is the news article I had referred to:

If Councilwoman Willis would like to run a Facebook page like it was her own personal page, she should close her government page and start one. Otherwise, she must abide by settled law on the matter and allow not only comments she agrees with but opposing viewpoints as well. 

The same evening she blocked me on Facebook, Ms. Willis emailed the City Attorney and copied me as follows:

"Attorney Hyman,

The comment was deleted because it’s was harassing and an attempt to undermine the intent of the ordinance. I will gladly speak with you about this in detail."

As you can see, that was an outright lie. There was nothing harassing in my comment, and as far as an "attempt to undermine" the ordinance, I was merely speaking what I considered to be the facts.

The District 3 Councilwoman's arrogance, violation of oath of office, and violation of my free speech rights could wind up costing the City of South Fulton tax-payers a good chunk of money in attorney's fees and damages.

I have reached out to the Mayor, City Manager, and City Attorney to resolve this without litigation. All I require is that my Facebook account be unlocked on the page, and that my comments will no longer be capriciously deleted. 

She did the same to two others that I know of, so this is a pattern with her.

Friday, August 26, 2022

Not All Adults Have Equal Rights...Well Yes They Do © 2022 Phillip Evans

A common argument used to justify these under 21 year old adults bearing arms in public is the fact that they are old enough to serve in the military and die for our country, and therefore should have the same rights as older adults. The counter argument is that they should then pick a branch of the military and join up if they want that right. The counter argument sounds hollow on the face of it, even more so when you factor in that 18 year old men could be forced to serve whether or not they want to, if the draft was reinstated.

And there's more on the pro side. An 18 year old without parental permission can get married, buy a house, buy a car, be legally responsible for any valid contract they might sign, and automatically go to the adult jail for any crime committed, even for a mere non-violent misdemeanor. No juvie option available.

That makes it a wrap, that if you can be handled by the law as an adult, you therefore have all your adult rights!

Another lame anti argument is the pointing to laws requiring one to be 21 to purchase alcohol, as if that had anything to do with a constitutional right, unless there is an amendment to purchase and imbibe booze somewhere snuck in by Benjamin Franklin at the last minute. And while buying such beverages is not an enumerated constitutional right (neither is eating a sandwich without mayo on Saturdays), it is still stupid to treat adults unequally with any law.

Probably the weakest anti argument is the "but 18 year-olds don't need to own or carry handguns". Really? So an 18 year old doing all the things an adult does has no need of effective tools of self-defense? No need for protection while driving, while walking to the store, while walking in a wooded park, while biking on a path, or while doing any other lawful thing out in public? Silly liberty haters, tricks are for kids.

It's outrageously ironic that government agents botched a rescue resulting in even more deaths, only for the government in response to then disarm and punish citizens wishing to defend themselves from murderers. And done by those who "support the Second Amendment". You can't write fiction stranger than this.

In Georgia, under 21 adults can carry a handgun on their own property, or in public at their place of business, or inside a vehicle that belongs to them. However, they do not get to benefit from the recent permitless carry law until they turn 21. Look for this one to go soon. If the Georgia General Assembly were to take the initiative, they could get it done early next year. Or they could sit back and wait for a court to strike down the prohibition. I suppose we will see what happens when they convene again.

When the fallout from Bruen forced New York to issue carry licenses, when the rich and politically connected (and vastly White), were no longer the only ones to get the government permission slip, what did they do? 

Criminals being armed in public was one thing but the idea of mere peon citizens being armed gave the politicians fits. Their new law has so many enumerated off-limits places, along with all private businesses unless there is a "guns welcome" sign posted, that the license is now virtually worthless.

That had the unintended consequence of giving heartburn to the elites, some of whom likely paid money or gave other favors to obtain their now devalued license, unless that law is also eventually struck down. It will be juicy seeing some of these elites turning on the elite politicians. Will they just curse them out to their face, or will they bring it public? Who knows?

With Justice Clarence Thomas carrying the ball for us, we are now finally back-to-the-future where the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" means what it actually says.

Be sure to join at least one or more national guns rights groups such as the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, etc., as well as your own state's gun rights organization. They are the ones supporting the lawsuits helping to restore our liberty.