Replies

I see what you're saying, jcparks. However, isn't the key point "immunity from prosecution", which is not addressed in the Constitution? Or is it, implicitly? I'm not sure.

People who bear arms in self-defense, even if they are not LEO's, should not be penalized for causing grief to those who perpetrate criminal acts. I suspect this proposed Act comes out of the Florida case where the dad protected his little son by shooting (but failing to kill) a threatening intruder.

That case might have been in New York City--father had two jobs, there was a breakin by a known repeat perp, father uses 9mm which is unregistered in NYC but he had just moved there, gun properly registered in Florida where he's from, USNavy veteran, no problems, no record.

O'Reilly was on that one. NY DA wants to send the father to Rikers on weekends. Father can't afford to take time off from job.

Truly a miscarriage of justice to have that DA elected and able to make decisions.

Looks like a good bill to me, BTW, because it's "after the fact" of "right to carry." You don't have to ask the Feds for permission, according to a strict interpretation of the 2nd. Well, whatever--THIS bill will provide protection for one who USES the 2nd, with or without Gummint permission.

Let's keep the ball in the air. BTT