[Ipinawetsuit]

Well he DID break the law, apparently - but the charge reflects it. I don't think anyone is blaming him for shooting the burglar (good riddance), and I think I would have done the same thing...

But he had illegal possession of a handgun. That is the true basis of the charge as I see it. If he had used a registered hand gun, this argument would likely be academic.

I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I also don't want unregistered guns in the hands of gang members and lunatics...(assuming, of course that such people could not come into legitmate possession of a registered gun by themselves) He showed irresponsibility in having that gun and should be denied the right to have any further "registered" guns in the future by having a criminal record.

My 2 cents, worth what you paid for it.

[asformeandformyhouse]

I'm all for the right to bear arms, but

I doubt it. That's a big but you've got there.

[Mulder]

Well he DID break the law, apparently

Any edict contrary to the Constitution is null and void per Marbury v. Madison. So the "law" he broke is no more legitimate than the "law" that said Rosa Parks had to sit in the back of the bus.

If anyone broke the law here, it's the corrupt politician in New York. It is a violation of federal law to attempt to deprive anyone of their civil Rights, which is exactly what is happening here. If he worked with others (quite likely), he's not only guilty of that law, but also of conspiring to violate someone's civil Rights.

He showed irresponsibility in having that gun and should be denied the right to have any further "registered" guns in the future by having a criminal record.

Maybe he actually believed we lived in a Free country like our politicians tell us.

but I also don't want unregistered guns in the hands of gang members and lunatics

Exactly who decides which of us are "lunatics"?

[from occupied ga]

I also don't want unregistered guns in the hands of gang members and lunatics

And just who gets to determine who is allowed to exercise their God given right and who doesn't? The government? You? If you have to ask the government's permission to do something, then it isn't a right any more, it's a privilege, and privileges can be revoked at any time for any reason (or no reason - just the whim of a pompous "we take this very seriously" bureaucrat).

Gun confiscations have always been preceeded by registration. Even in the good ol' USA. NYC forced owners of semi-autos to register them in 1976, and then in 1999 confiscated them. To think that registration will prevent criminals from getting firearms is extremely foolish. Registration will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, and is not intended to prevent criminals from getting firearms. It's purpose is solely to allow the government to (unconstitutionally) keep track of the firearms of law abiding citizens for eventual confiscation.

[TEXASPROUD]

"He showed irresponsibility in having that gun..."

He made a decision to have the means to protect his family. It's too bad this gentleman does not live in Texas, he would have been no billed by the grand jury and congratulated for good markmanship.
I have always had a hard time understanding the mindset of Yankees when it comes to self-defense. I have lived in the south and southwest all my life. I could never live in a place that would deny me the right to defend my family.
I have always wondered how much of an outcry there would be if there was a federal law passed that took away all the gunfighters from the politicians they guard. (Hillary would have a cow.)

[eno_]

Welcome to FR.

We don't care much for unconstitutional laws here.

Bet then again, if you think the direction of our IP laws actually is to the benefit of the useful arts, you might take a little time to get "shall not be infringed."

[sauropod]

I assure you. Its not even worth that.

Go back and read the 2nd Amendment. And take your Pharasaical attitude with you when you do.

[G Larry]

"Unregistered" my a$$!!
I've got a safe full of weapons that will NEVER be registered!
That's why there are no "legally" held, privately owned rifles in NYC, because ~25 years ago someone convinced JQ Public that 'registering' them was no threat to their right to own them.
And now they've been confiscated because the city new who to go after.....the law abiding public!!!

[Jack Black]

I've never lived in a state that has gun registration, so I'm not real familiar with the concept. Nor do I like it on the face. Was he a felon? No. So how could the gun be illegal? I don't get it. Here in Oregon I can keep whatever type of gun I like in my house and don't have to go begging politicians for permission. This is what used to be known as a right. Either you have them or you don't. Obviously you prefer a system where you don't. That's too bad. Please stay in NY or California and don't come to Oregon. We don't need more people who think like you, we have too many already.

[Nov3]

I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I also don't want unregistered guns in the hands of gang members and lunatics...

You don't have a clue do you? Find out what the constitution is.

My 2 cents, worth what you paid for it.

Not even worth that.

[pepperdog]

"I'm all for the right to bear arms"

No, you are not!

[ninenot]

but I also don't want unregistered guns in the hands of gang members and lunatics.

Sorry to advise you that your wishes will not be heeded.

MY two cents worth on the rest of your post: you are a weenie.

[TEXOKIE]

I read on a previous thread when this story first came out that he had moved from another state and already had the gun and was IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING IT REGISTERED AND HAD PAID A BUNCH OF MONEY TO GET IT DONE. He was making an honest effort to comply with the law.

[Jim Noble]

>>but I also don't want unregistered guns in the hands of gang members and lunatics...(assuming, of course that such people could not come into legitmate possession of a registered gun by themselves) He showed irresponsibility in having that gun and should be denied the right to have any further "registered" guns in the future by having a criminal record<<

Only the rich and famous can have legal handguns in NYC.

There is no way a poor black man would be granted a license. None whatsoever.

[JimRed]

But he had illegal possession of a handgun. That is the true basis of the charge as I see it. If he had used a registered hand gun, this argument would likely be academic.

He had taken the legal steps to register the gun as required. Is it his fault that the bureaucrats took their sweet time processing his paperwork?

[SERE_DOC]

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. He was in the process of registering his weapons and the "process" is too lengthy. He protected his family period, the DA not unlike you is a self serving moron. Drop trou and bend over as much as you like and you will be a statistic like the perp.

The best I can say to you is

It must suck to be you.

[NorthGA]

"I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I also don't want unregistered guns ..."

Then never move to the south. We have no registration of guns here. Many people are armed; the police assume you are armed when they stop you or you have a car wreck.

One policeman got upset with a lady in our church after she had an accident. She was removing items from her car before the wrecker towed it away, and he mentioned "don't forget your pistol." When she said she did not have one, he got upset and said "what do you mean not having a pistol? Every woman who travels by herself should have a pistol." This not too long ago, but before Tennessee had the concealed carry permits they now have.

I am very happy that I live in a part of the country that thinks more people having guns is a good thing.

[wcbtinman]

"Well he DID break the law, apparently..."

If the law in question is un-Constitutional, and I believe this one is, it has no effect, and is null and void.

See Marbury vs Madison.

[honeygrl]

"I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I also don't want unregistered guns in the hands of gang members and lunatics.."

I may be mistaken but I think the point is that criminals aren't going to register their guns so the registration laws are useless and only punishes the law abiding citizens who have to waste their time with the registration process.

[lepton]

But he had illegal possession of a handgun. That is the true basis of the charge as I see it. If he had used a registered hand gun, this argument would likely be academic.

In NYC, it is essentially impossible to legally register a handgun.

[Dan from Michigan]

but I also don't want unregistered guns in the hands of gang members and lunatics

Well, gun registration works great, doesn't it. And NYC has the infamous Sullivan Law. It's a near total ban(only the elite can have guns.

When guns are outlawed, the outlaws have guns, and good citizens have to be outlaws to have guns.

This man needs to be found not guilty. If OJ was innocent as a reason to stick it to 'da man', than Ronald Dixon needs to be found innocent for at least the same reason.