| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tankfixer
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
 |
|
In article <486a18de.4364828@news.east.earthlink.net>, bw@barrk.net
says...
| Quote: |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:54:34 -0700, tankfixer
paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote:
In article <4868e3af.10806453@news.east.earthlink.net>, bw@barrk.net
says...
It may also be possible to make USING a gun, even in
self-defense, a crime of some sort - even if it's just
in violation of a "discharging a firearm inside the
city limits' sort of crime - to harass and intimidate
the common Joe.
Unlikely since the descion found that self defense is protected.
They wouldn't charge you with the "defense" per-se ... just
the nuts and bolts of how you *accomplished* it. 
|
I think such a law could be easily challanged and overturned.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
leonard78sp@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Jun 27, 6:08 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Innews:486562fb$0$7356$607ed4bc@cv.netBobby Jacobs <Fo...@Bass.gov.
wrote:
n...@gntbcr.com wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:44:14 -0600, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:34:34 -0400, "Topp@Work"
toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
Worng.....Cops have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect you ...SCOTUS
Ruled on that too...
That's nonsense. What USSC ruling was that?
Here's ONE, dumbass. Feel free to look up more.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 04-278 (snip)
The racist Nick...@Click.com is only one of a few thousand dozen idiot
LIBERAL shits stains from elsewhere, that does NOT know that the
police are NOT obligated to protect, or even show up.
Bowers v. Devito
"There is a constitutional right not to be murdered by a state
officer, for the state violates the Fourteenth Amendment when its
officer, acting under color of state law, deprives a person of life
without due process of law. Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05
(5th Cir. 1961). But there is no constitutional right to be protected
by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
Not a Supreme Court decision, but it does describe the situation
clearly.
|
•• Directly to the point, Bert.
Further, police are not "security guards" and
can only act after a crime has been committed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Jul 3, 9:27 am, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 27, 6:08 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:486562fb$0$7356$607ed4bc@cv.netBobbyJacobs <Fo...@Bass.gov.
wrote:
n...@gntbcr.com wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:44:14 -0600, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:34:34 -0400, "Topp@Work"
toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
Worng.....Cops have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect you ...SCOTUS
Ruled on that too...
That's nonsense. What USSC ruling was that?
Here's ONE, dumbass. Feel free to look up more.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 04-278 (snip)
The racist Nick...@Click.com is only one of a few thousand dozen idiot
LIBERAL shits stains from elsewhere, that does NOT know that the
police are NOT obligated to protect, or even show up.
Bowers v. Devito
"There is a constitutional right not to be murdered by a state
officer, for the state violates the Fourteenth Amendment when its
officer, acting under color of state law, deprives a person of life
without due process of law. Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05
(5th Cir. 1961). But there is no constitutional right to be protected
by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
Not a Supreme Court decision, but it does describe the situation
clearly.
•• Directly to the point, Bert.
Further, police are not "security guards" and
can only act after a crime has been committed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Not according to anonymous testimony. The right to confront your
accuser is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
137 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
