later
Sad when a persons right to defend oneself has to be defined by lawyers. 100 years ago this would have never been questioned. Natural law over man made law, or even a rat will bite you if he is cornered.
Not sure I like this because it's easy to see it being used against a homeowner, say, who leaves the immediate scene of a crime during a home invasion robbery (namely, the front entryway) to retrieve a gun from a back room or a car parked outside, then returning and killing the home invaders, only to be charged under this provision. His home is his home and he should be allowed to leave and return. Could say the same about his car if he's carjacked.
I was raised Democrat. I had problems with that. So I set about educating myself.
There came a time when I addressed the issue of guns. Gun ownership, gun use, gun laws - all of it.
God, being Good, introduced me at that time to the writings of Massad Ayoob. Firmly, yet, gently and clearly, he took hold of my head, and oriented it in the correct direction about guns, and everything concerning them.
Since then, I have had no questions, because he made everything crystal clear.
Thank you, Massad. I consider you a dear friend you have never met.
In principle I have no problem with this. The devil, however, is in the definition of "illegally". Freedom haters have spent decades erecting a scaffolding of illogical, conflicting (mostly in geographical terms, but sometimes also law vs. law), and picayune laws which render possession at a given time in a given location "illegal" for reasons that wouldn't stand up if they had to be debated on a case-by-case basis. So....NO. Besides, since SYG is ALREADY restricted to cases in which the shooter is in a place they have the legal right to be and causing no harm till the conflict erupts, why is he obsessing about illegal possession?
2. If the suspect has a history of violence or a felony conviction, he/she loses the preponderance clause. In other words, a judge can’t dismiss the case; it must go before a jury.
This is another one that sounds good in principle, but I bet the terms get to be applied as defined by attorneys and liberals, in other words, incorrectly. So, as you must do with any proposal that could be abused to abuse freedom, you must err on the safe side; BRRRRRRRAP!
3. If the shooter left the scene to arm himself/herself, and then returned to confront the victim, then SYG does not apply.
I believe that's already the case.
which explains why the prosecution at the Zimmerman bond hearing badgeringly pursued this line of questioning with his wife. He should expect it at the SYG hearing.
“1. The law is inapplicable if the shooter possesses a firearm illegally. “
I have problems with that inclusion. The right to self defense is for all men. Just because the government doesn’t approve of their being armed means, what, that they are less of a human and deserve to be a victim?
We all know what the government gives it can take away and it cannot take what it did not give. Self defense is a God given right, not a government provided privilege subject to its approval.