Posted on 08/24/2006 2:21:29 PM PDT by KstoDC
Steaming Pile of Leftist Crap Alert!
Of course it does. And so do laws pertaining to negligence. Legal right to self defense does not entitle anyone to fire negligently and take out whatever innocent bystanders might be downrange.
( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
Guns is always legal. Guns do not go out and break laws. People break laws. When that happens, and the said people are convicted of breaking the law; those people are punished. Sometimes the guns get punished as well.
Even if he is charged for possession of an illegal firearm, what about the murder charge?
Please do not be deceived by the liberal parsing of words. This case is about killing an innocent person. Not about the "illegal possession of a firearm". An illegal firearm is one that has been modified in violation of statute, such as a sawed-off shotgun. Funny thing is, American Derringer sells derringers chambered for .410. With a 4" barrel from the factory. Cut your Mossberg down to less that 18" barrel/ 22" overall, and it becomes illegal to posses. Go figure.
The "stand your ground" thing just means that they could not charge you with murder in connection with a crime, just negligent homicide (or other form of negligencee). That's as it should be. In these affairs, intent counts.
But in this particular case, the aggravating crime could be possesion of a firearm by a convicted felon. Yes it complicates the prosecution, but laws are supposed to be made to protect the public, not make civil servants' jobs easier.
Unless the firearms were machine guns or short barreled shotguns, they were probably legal. It's the possession of them by convicted felons that would be illegal.
Under the Constitutions of the United States, and of Florida, shouldn't be any such thing as an "illegal firearm". Not even the aforementioned machine guns and short barreled shotguns. The latter being very good for home defense.
Seems to be a contradiction here somewhere. Who gets to decide what's "reasonable". The Constitution indicates that any "infringement" is unreasonable. Florida's Constitution allows regulation of the manner of bearing arms (IE can ban concealed carry or open carry, but not both) and provides for a waiting period for purchases. Of course the Federal constitution would consider these infringements on the right.
Well it does matter. Maybe not in this case though. If the shooter had been a lawful gun owner, defending herself against a criminal, she would still be responsible for the death of the little girl, but what crime she could be charged with would be different. I would think the most she could be charged with would be negligent homicide.
Of course the criminal could be held legally responsible as well, and he could be charged with murder, since the death occurred during the commission of a crime, his assault, or attempted rape or whatever.
In this case both "gentlemen" where likely committing the crime of "felon in possession", and likely others as well, so they could still be charged with murder, maybe both of them. Now that would be more work for the prosecutor, but it would be justice.
Chill. Effectively it's still there, now the law just spells out the definition of "needed killing". Quite a long list of reasons actually.
Democrats. Not sure what Kinky's position is on it.
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.