Posted on 10/01/2006 2:17:32 PM PDT by Mini-14
Yes, the NRA has about sixty case pending concerning citizens who were caught trying to decipher twenty thousand gun laws.
Since you want the NRA involved, I'm inviting you to join the four million NRA members doing what seventy four million gun owners are too lazy to do. Protect the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
Mary is the poster child of what is wrong with the federal law and state law. Therefore, I expect that the U.S. Attorney will NOT prosecute the case because it could get the federal law overturned. What U.S. Attorney wants to take on a case that he/she is guaranteed to lose?
"In Texas there is nothing in the gun statutes that differentiates between a loaded or unloaded gun."
As it is in Arizona.
As it should be.
bttt
What a conundrum. I mean, suppose it turned out that the school teacher whom the kids loved and who single-handedly raised the literacy rate of his school smoked his brains out with pot when he went home every night.
How long do you think he'd have a job when the news got out? And who do you think would suffer from the fallout?
I am so sick and tired of the fact that we don't protect women in this country from ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends; we should not allow anyone to be terrorized like that. These bastards should be locked up permanently.
Just arm the women and teach them to shoot.
It seems to me that if an agent or agency of the government takes from me my ability to defend myself, then there is an implicit duty for that "person" to defend me, and to do so effectively. Few sane people like violence. Few of us gun toters contemplate with equanimity having to use our weapons. BUT when people are attacked, to punish them for defending themselves and at the same time failing to defend them from attack is wrong.
I know a young lady who was sexually assaulted in high school (not raped, just groped) by three young high school students much bigger than she. She, howeverr, is a howling banshee and she fought like one demented -- and was punished for it. If that were my daughter I'd have sued the school.
And, yes, I HAVE been in a situation where someone approached me yelling threats and brandishing a tire-thumper. I drew on him, checked behind and around him for anyone that might get hit if I missed, and pointed my muzzle right between his eyes. It's amazing how good training and adrenaline can work together. He suddenly remembered an appointment, I reported the incident to the authorities, and I shook for three days. But I'm glad I was armed AND trained AND that I drill weekly. This guy was younger, stronger, and faster than I, and was counting on my being a helpless victim.
And NO, the NRA does NOT advocate carrying openly in every circumstance. Concealed carry has the virtue that the assailant doesn't know whether or not one is armed. By carrying concealed, I protect those who don't carry at all, because at least the fairly smart guy has to wonder if they too are carrying concealed. Where in the NRA literature does it advocate always carrying openly?
If you won't protect me (and the events of last week show that schools won't or can't protect their staff or their students), and won't allow me to defend myself, then you'd better not count on my respect or my cooperation. There are a few people who want me alive, and I'm going to try not to disappoint them.
>Just arm the women and teach them to shoot.
We need to lock up these guys for a long time, 5 years minimum for breaking restraining orders.
Locking them up after they kill their ex, sorry, violate the restraining order, isn't good enough. An armed woman can prevent her own demise.
Yes, jurors are the supreme arbiter of the law. I shudder to think of the alternatives.
Exactly!
Melas, in case you don't know, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled *again* on this. We have no "right" to be protected by LEOs. That leaves our safety in our own hands. How anyone expects us to do so when they restrict our rights to self-defense is beyond me.
As they say, "Better judged by twelve than carried by six."
We're talking nullifcation here, and it only takes one juror, just one to nullify a jury. Sorry, but that only works when you have 12 people who are dilligently applying the law. As soon as you get one yahoo in who thinks that all gun laws are evil, all black men just go free, that Mexican can do no wrong, or any other such scenerio it all falls apart.
"I can honestly say that I do my absolute best to obey all laws, even traffic laws."
Good. Then I can absolutely rely on you to use the law of jury nullification, which recognizes the power of the jury to judge both the facts and the law in all the States of the Union.
If you do not believe this is true, ask your lawyer friends, as I did, and you will find that they mostly answer, "Well, it is true, but it shouldn't be."
While that's an oft sounded note, it's one of those maxims that sounds a lot better than it plays out.
The reality would be like, "Judged by 12, found guilty and spent the next 22 years being anally raped in prison." As sayings go, the above sort of looses it's pith once the consquence of being judged by 12 is brought to light.
Long way to go to excuse a jerk.
If I were a U.S. Attorney, I'd prosecute the case for the specific purpose of losing it because losing it would be good for the country. I guess that's why I'm an engineer and not a lawyer.
Those bullets scare me.
Make them stop.
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.