richalex2010 t1_j2pltys wrote

He did retire. He didn't have a job, and acting like he did have one would've taken away from what his successor was doing. This is typical for rulers who abdicate their throne, they at most take an advisory role that keeps them out of the public eye. Calling it "going into hiding" is a bit misleading.


richalex2010 t1_irdv72x wrote

> This is just fear disguised as innocent concern.

This is literally what "good moral standing" clauses in almost every state's carry permit schemes was meant to do. It's a way of getting around the 14th amendment's equal protection clause without explicitly saying "black people can't have guns" - they'd just rule on a "case by case" basis and determine that almost no black person had "good moral standing" instead. How these rules are actually applied has evolved, but it boils down to the same idea - people the cops don't like don't get guns, doesn't matter if it's a reasonable concern over public safety or because they don't like an applicant's accent.

Police oversight is already basically nonexistent when they choke someone to death, what makes you think there's sufficient oversight to avoid misconduct in the permit issuing process?


richalex2010 t1_irdup98 wrote

No, first amendment was right, freedom of speech - this law required police to review people's social media prior to issuing an application, meaning that there's a significant chilling effect on speech if you know that cops are going to be combing through your posts trying to find a reason to deny your second amendment right (also note that the reason to deny was at their discretion, there was no objective standard for "problematic" posts).