Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Awfully disingenuous to ask that. We didn't suggest he needed or should have needed a permit. The suggestion was that there is a time and a place for discretion. A more proper first amendment analogy would have been to say "would you view his actions inappropriate if he had gone to the airport and began loudly orating on abortion (or pick another topic which upsets a number of people)?" Maybe people think he is crazy or dangerous, but he was only exercising his rights, right? Maybe he is asked to quiet down or leave. It's public property. He isn't really breaking a law, but he is being a bit of a nuisance. We wouldn't all just to support his obnoxious behavior. But neither would we be advocating to make it illegal but a lot of people would Same thing here.
See, here's the funny thing about your position; it's a non sequitur. While both carrying a long gun and "loudly orating on abortion" are examples of protected speech, only one can be defined as a nuisance because it assaults the ears and one has no choice but to listen even if turned away.
That's why doing so at the airport is illegal, and carrying a legal firearm isn't.