Husband Goes To Jail For Shooting Robber Who Was Holding His Wife At Gun Point

[curling]

Am I invisible? I am feeling invisible today? Velvett did you see my post? What is your comment?

 

[ChefWide]

i believe the term is .... owned.. or something like that...


cheers, V.

 

[XBiker]

Back pedaling?

Did you READ the article?

H A N D G U N he had a HANDGUN - not a rifle/shotgun.

There an enourmous difference between hanguns and rifles in purchasing and licensing from state to state, or don't you know that?

What do you prefer divorced with kids?

Get a life.

If you need to try and insult me to debate me you had better reach into those cobwebs and do better than that.

Originally Posted by p0ink
gun ownership is a right, not a privelege. and once again, what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?

I love ya P0ink but it's the other way around - gun ownership is a privilege not a right.

The context this was being used in was in the constitutional sense (arms), not the article in question.

States, counties, cities, and municipalities have the ability to be MORE restrictive than the above governing body, but not more lax. Exception being if a court declares the MORE restrictive law as being unconstitutional.

If you'd like, I will happily explain to you why the founding fathers felt that the "right to bear ARMS" was extremely important, second only the 1st Amendment.

 

[velvett]

This all boils down to common sense. Who cares about a little piece of paper and when it expired. Two whacos broke into this dudes house and had his wife at gunpoint. He protected his family in his own house and should be treated as a victom not as criminal. He should not have been arrested over some stupid technicality. It sounds like we are turning into a stupid liberal country like those fag european countries that protect the criminals and prosecute the victoms. Europe sucks.

You know Curling you're right, in the big picture it's outrageous to think that a man is going to be arrested because he was protecting his wife IN his own house. The reality is that an expired pistol license is the same as no license at all so technically he is being arrested for the lack of license and not for shooting the robber. The cop that arrested him was simply following procedure and if what Rositen said was true (that he disarmed the robber THEN shot him) who knows what's going to happen to the poor guy.

It's a messed up situation no matter how you look at it but they arrested him for lack of a permit not for shooting the robber. I don't see how a jury of his peers could possible hold the man's actions against him and I'm also sure it will come out why he had not renew his license.

I'm not saying that his arrest is morally right but it's simply a procedure.

The moral of the story is that people need to be responsible, if you take on the ownership of a handgun in a state that requires such licensing you should be sharp enough not to let your license run out.

It's just like a driver's license - if I get in a wreck and I'm laying in the hospital somewhere because a tractor trailer ran a red light, I'm still going to get fined for operating a vehicle without a license.

 

[velvett]

The context this was being used in was in the constitutional sense (arms), not the article in question.

States, counties, cities, and municipalities have the ability to be MORE restrictive than the above governing body, but not more lax. Exception being if a court declares the MORE restrictive law as being unconstitutional.

If you'd like, I will happily explain to you why the founding fathers felt that the "right to bear ARMS" was extremely important, second only the 1st Amendment.

The constitution does not matter in this case, states are governed by their own laws therefore it is privledge not right.

A pistol license or lack of one relates 100% to this article and why the man was arrested - and that my friend is where PRIVILEGE steps all over right.

 

[browndog1]

Look at you fear-mongerers. Wah Wah Wah.

If you read the description of the accounts -- it's pretty complicated and drawn-out. Lots of write-down and i'm sure the robbers gave all kinds of fancy accounting of what happened too.

It's NOT the cops job to decide what happened or who is at fault, etc. It's the DA's.

The cops just followed protocol. Would YOU wanna get chewed out by your boss when you go back to the station and he asks "That guy, with an illegal gun, shot an unarmed person, point black -- you arrested him right?". "uhh. no Sargeant". "Why not?". "Uhh, cuz he was a nice guy?".

Fact is -- 99% chance the DA won't press charges against this guy. So relax.

The cops, under training, all they can do is write down everything that happened, make the mandatory arrest, then let the judge and DA figure it out.

That's how our justice system works. If you don't want cops becoming judge, jury and executioner -- then you must SUPPORT them when they go by the book and do their job.

pretty good post bro...

 

[p0ink]

The constitution does not matter in this case, states are governed by their own laws therefore it is privledge not right.

A pistol license or lack of one relates 100% to this article and why the man was arrested - and that my friend is where PRIVILEGE steps all over right.

so as long as a state passes laws, it is ok regardless of constitutionality?

say a state wants to pass a law forbidding people to speak out against the government or any elected officials, would states rights superceded the constitution in that case? no.

the constitution is the law of the land when it comes to governmental restrictions.

the 10th amendment is what gives the states the authority to govern anything not already covered by the constitution - but in the case of gun laws, it's already been covered by the 2nd amendment.

unfortunately, we have unconstitutional gun laws, which have only made society more dangerous, because of people thinking the government can do as they please or just complete and total indifference.

hopefully, people will wake up sooner rather than later.

 

[JonPee]

The constitution does not matter in this case, states are governed by their own laws therefore it is privledge not right.

A pistol license or lack of one relates 100% to this article and why the man was arrested - and that my friend is where PRIVILEGE steps all over right.

Sorry, you're wrong on this one. State laws are not above the constitution, This argument was settled in the Civil War.

 

[curling]

Thank you velvett for making me feel visible again. Even if he did disarm them, he still should have shot and killed both of them. I have no respect for the life of home invaders. They along with child molestors are just to scummy to allow to remain alive.

 

[velvett]

Sorry, you're wrong on this one. State laws are not above the constitution, This argument was settled in the Civil War.

LOL

OK.

You just keep believing that.