Skip to comments.
Several States Consider 'Stand Your Ground' Bills
The Tampa Tribune ^
| Mar 13, 2006
| TODD LESKANIC
Posted on 03/14/2006 5:53:23 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
1
posted on
03/14/2006 5:53:25 PM PST
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
Hey Hamm!! You don't speak for conservatives or the GOP. Go drink some more Hamms and leave us to the business of protecting ourselves.
This could be called anti-terrorist legislation.
2
posted on
03/14/2006 6:00:18 PM PST
by
westmichman
(Please pray with me for global warming)
To: neverdem
And law abiding citizens in gun repressive states like mine (CA), will continue to rely on untraceable throw down pieces.
3
posted on
03/14/2006 6:01:51 PM PST
by
ncountylee
(Dead terrorists smell like victory)
To: westmichman
TINA! Come get some HAMM!
Gosh!
To: neverdem
He [Peter Hamm of the Brady Center] questioned the need for the "Stand Your Ground" bills, given that the law usually sides with people who shoot someone in self-defense.
Well-settled tort law hasn't stopped you j@ck@sses at the Brady Center from attempting to sue gun manufacturers out of existence for a criminal's misuse of a lawfully produced and federally regulated product, has it Mr. Hamm?
Moron.
5
posted on
03/14/2006 6:07:16 PM PST
by
Abundy
To: neverdem
"The usual conservative doctrine is that we don't need new laws for everything," Hamm said. "This is a textbook case of an area where we don't need new laws." Of course we don't.. especially after you've succeeded in getting 10,000 odd laws passed to restrict gun ownership and use.. Why would we need just "one more law" giving the "shall not be infringed" part of the constitution back to the people??
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
6
posted on
03/14/2006 6:07:44 PM PST
by
xcamel
(Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
To: neverdem
In Minnesota, we were damned lucky to have the "shall issue" law passed, twice. The DFL'ers in this blue state are still looking for ways to neuter the right to bear arms.
Not a chance in hell that a "stand your ground" law would pass here.
7
posted on
03/14/2006 6:08:46 PM PST
by
ButThreeLeftsDo
(Carry Daily, Apply Sparingly.)
To: neverdem
Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ... questioned the need for the "Stand Your Ground" bills, given that the law usually sides with people who shoot someone in self-defense. Not in the anti-gun states, they don't, Peter!
"The usual conservative doctrine is that we don't need new laws for everything," Hamm said. "This is a textbook case of an area where we don't need new laws."
Good Lord! What a lying hypocrite!
8
posted on
03/14/2006 6:33:17 PM PST
by
Fido969
(It's all about ME)
To: neverdem
The National Rifle Association for years has used Florida as a testing ground for gun-rights laws. If this had a shred of truth to it, how the hell did Al "mental health" gore nearly take that state? This line looks like a desperate attempt to get Florida to stop proving the left wrong.
9
posted on
03/14/2006 7:20:34 PM PST
by
kerryusama04
(The Bill of Rights is not occupation specific.)
To: neverdem
Critics charge that such bills send the message that violence is OK.
As a matter of fact it is.
In the context of self-defense. And, who are these "critics", since they are apparently anonymous they have less than 0 (zero) credibility and can be safely ignored. In any case it's nice not to let our "representatives" criminalize self-defense. Years ago -get this - self-defense was considered an *obligation*.
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
To: neverdem
Tell me NY is one. Please.
12
posted on
03/14/2006 8:23:08 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: metmom; cyborg; Clemenza; Cacique; NYCVirago; The Mayor; Darksheare; hellinahandcart; Chode; ...
Tell me NY is one. Please.Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure NY has a "duty to retreat" law on the books. With the dems controlling the Assembly, it's not likely to change. FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
13
posted on
03/14/2006 9:08:23 PM PST
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
Kopel doesn't sound like he's representing anything conservative in this hatchet-job.
14
posted on
03/14/2006 9:11:22 PM PST
by
Petronski
(I love Cyborg!)
To: neverdem
Washington State has a "stand your ground" law. One of the benefits of living in this otherwise sorry state.
15
posted on
03/14/2006 9:14:37 PM PST
by
Clemenza
To: neverdem
Unless the laws have changed dramatically since I had a pistol permit in Suffolk County, you were allowed to intervene in a kidnapping, attempted murder of another person and any felony which bodily harm could come to another with the use of deadly force.
16
posted on
03/14/2006 9:17:28 PM PST
by
NY Attitude
(You are responsible for your safety until the arrival of Law Enforcement Officers!)
To: neverdem
So the victim has a duty to retreat. Let's protect the criminal. Nice.
17
posted on
03/14/2006 9:28:59 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: metmom; NY Attitude
So the victim has a duty to retreat. Let's protect the criminal. Nice.Yeah, the police will protect you, NOT! But you can't harm anyone unless you are in a situation like NY Attitude described in comment 16.
18
posted on
03/14/2006 9:40:28 PM PST
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
Haven't done armed security work in a few years. However, the last time I looked in New York state you are permited to use as much force as is necessary to stop a person from harming anoither person as well as yourself and may use deadly force if you fee under the circumstances that the use of that force was necessary to save your life or that of others. It is only necessary for you to feel that your life was in danger in order to use deadly force. There are other nuances. A p[erp muist be warned or be aware that you are capable of using such deadly force, for that reason it is sometimes advised that when confronting someone on your property you do so with a rifle or shotgun since the silouette can be more easily perceived by a perp than a pistol. I believe these laws are still on the books. New York is also still one of the few states left where recording of conversations requires the consent of only one of the parties ( namely the person doing the recording). New York is kind of funny that way.
HOwever, I am not a lawyer and you should check the current criminal code in New York state and cosnult l;awyer familiar with such laws to make sure.
19
posted on
03/14/2006 9:42:41 PM PST
by
Cacique
(quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
To: Fido969
Not in the anti-gun states, they don't, Peter!Thank you! I wonder if the Hamms of the world would "stand their ground" if a member of their own family were robbed, raped or murdered?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson