You said — “That prosecutor is exceeding his authority. “School policy” does not equal “law”.
Well, between you and me, that might be right. But, we’re not the ones doing the prosecuting. And, if you’re counseling others about avoid trouble and staying within the “boundaries” set up by the government for “law-abiding” gun usage (which gun owners say “they are”) — you have to point out that there are going to be over-zealous prosecutors who will go after you, even if they don’t succeed in the end — basically — to *send a message* to the public that “You are going to have *trouble* if you attempt to do this!”
.
And then you said — “A couple of people tried that in personal injury cases here in GA, claiming that violations of company policy or internal rule manuals constituted a violation of law and negligence per se for liability purposes. That was rejected outright by the courts — and in the criminal law, it would be even more so, because a defendant has a constitutional right to have a reasonably understandable violation of the law charged against him. Any attempt to charge somebody in GA that way would result in a demurrer being granted to the indictment (i.e. the indictment would be dismissed).”
And all that wold involve *trouble* and a *real hardship* for a lot of people. And so, it’s *that very thing* which is going to make people shy away from it.
.
Finally — “Sounds like a Nifong, Jr. is loose in Colorado.”
Yes, very much so. And with the Nifong case, didn’t those families *suffer* a great deal — something that should have never happened? And, will they *ever* recover from that? How about all the lost time, in regards to those students? How about the students who have been forced to go elsewhere and will probably never come back again? How about that story *always* following them around, everywhere they go?
And so, how many people are going to want to find *their Nifong* in court — because of some “policy” that they thought they could easily circumvent? Not very many — and that’s what is happening...
Regards,
Star Traveler
I make that point in my article, since I know more than a little about the Sheriffs and SA's in the 11th Congressional District. The only exception to that statement is Buncombe County, which is dominated by very Democratic and left-wing voters and politicians. In that jurisdiction only, someone who saved lives by quick action with an (illegal) gun would be prosecuted. However, even there, I think that jury nullification, a refusal to convict, would protect the person who protected others.
It is hard for some other lawyers to admit and understand that the "law" is not what is printed in the law books, it is what is, and is not, enforced in the real world. That is one of the points in my article.
John / Billybob
It's a question of degree here. If it's a choice between virtually a guarantee of having a gun pointed at you eventually (i.e. working for a pizza company or a convenience store) and getting fired, that's one thing. If it's a choice between really a fairly distant likelihood of a VT event and getting the whole machinery of the law coming down on you, that's quite another.
But the answer to rogue prosecutors and oppressive laws is not to curl up in a little ball and weep, "Oh! I can't do anything because they have all the power and it might cost me attorney fees!"
A pre-emptive challenge to the law brought by a sportsman's group is one answer. I know that works because I was one of the attorneys who challenged the Atlanta assault weapons ban on behalf of several local shooting clubs and gun shops. We won the case and the law was thrown out. Nobody had to get arrested.
Another way is to put up a good challenger and throw the bum prosecutor out at the next election.