Well, he could’ve used a hammer or a crowbar, a baseball bat or a steak knife to get the same end result. No permit required there, either. *SHRUG*
But having to kill people you know ‘up close and personal’ by hand is so ‘icky.’ ;)
Well, Duh. Anyone can do that, right? /sarc
I’m 46. I don’t know Michigan’s laws regarding capital punishment. But I’ll bet that I’ll be dead and buried of natural causes before Mister LaCalamita ever has a real punitive action performed on him.
Shooter has an appropriate name: Anthony the Calamity
Sounds like the process for getting a permit to purchase a handgun is "may issue", rather than "shall issue". The gun grabbers, while they would prefer "no issue", like the former because it allows the corrupt police chiefs, sheriffs and other political types, to issue to the "right people", their friends and celebrities, while denying to the "wrong people", everyone else, unless the "wrong people" make a substantial campaign contribution to the proper politicians.
It sounds like Michigan's pistol permit system is a violation the state Constitution, which reads:
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Article 1, sec. 6
Handguns are better for self defense than defense of the state, but can be used for either. A 12 gauge is useful in both contexts.
The application for the background check includes a box asking if the buyer has any mental or psychological problems, but anyone can simply mark ``no.''
The AFT 4473 form asks if you have been "adjudicated mentally defective". (The key word being "adjudicated".)
That is a bit different than simply asking if the buyer has "mental or psychological problems".
And Michigan, unlike some states, doesn't forbid selling guns to someone with mental health problems. Arkansas law forbids the sale of any type of gun to anyone who has been committed involuntarily to a mental institution, among other bans.
If someone has been committed involuntarily to a mental institution, then that person must have been adjudicated mentally ill, in a court of law.
In other words, they were given due process. Their rights were not arbitrarily stripped from them, simply because they sought medical treatment for depression, etc., at some point in the past.
The author of this article is deceptive and dishonest.