In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
80 yr Old Arrested After Shooting Burglar
andrewsw16
Member Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-elderly-man-shoots-burglar-in-englewood-both-charged-20120326,0,3175723.story
Turns out the old guy had a criminal record from several years ago and wasn't supposed to own a gun. I guess I missed that part of the 2nd A. "...shall not be infinged unless you have priors."
Turns out the old guy had a criminal record from several years ago and wasn't supposed to own a gun. I guess I missed that part of the 2nd A. "...shall not be infinged unless you have priors."
Comments
Coming to a city/neigborhood near you soon. [xx(]
Rant over. [}:)]
I don't think we should have indefinite punishment. Once you have done your time or paid your fine, you are square with the House. At that point your life should get the equivalent of a computer reboot. Your rights and privileges are the same as any other citizen. I strongly doubt the Founding Fathers would approve of indefinite lifelong continueing punishment. (Other than a life sentence in prison or an execution) Now, if you steal something of sufficient dollar value and get an official felony record, say when you are 18, serve your time, repent, and lead an exemplary life for the next 80 years, you still are a convicted felon and can't legally defend your life or your family with a gun. How about something even more ridiculous? You and your significant other, both teens, get into a fight and she charges YOU with domestic assault. You pay the $50 fine and go home. WHOOPS...you now have a misdemeanor domestic. No more guns for YOU for the REST OF YOUR LIFE! Come on now! They take away a Constitutionally protected right because of a misdemeanor when you were a teen??? This country's lawmakers, and those who elected them, have one SEVERE case of cranial-rectal insertion syndrome! [:(!][:(!]
Rant over. [}:)]
+1,000!
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
Sorry to disagree, but if a person can't get along within the very easy to live within boundaries of society and gets convicted of a felony crime, they blew their chance and need to pay the price that committing it entails. If that's a loss of some of their rights, they knew that going in and decided these things just weren't important enough to them to refrain from the act.
If people were as simple as computers, that would be fine. People aren't, and many (not all, but many) will never get it no matter what punishment is meted out. We all scream and yell when a person with a rap sheet commits more crime, right? We all say that a person has to "man up" and take full responsibility for their actions. We all say that we weren't raised to commit (insert crime here), so why did that guy do it?
Sorry to disagree, but if a person can't get along within the very easy to live within boundaries of society and gets convicted of a felony crime, they blew their chance and need to pay the price that committing it entails. If that's a loss of some of their rights, they knew that going in and decided these things just weren't important enough to them to refrain from the act.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms". Someone important said that............
If a man can't be trusted in society then he should still be imprisoned or killed.
quote:Originally posted by Riomouse911
If people were as simple as computers, that would be fine. People aren't, and many (not all, but many) will never get it no matter what punishment is meted out. We all scream and yell when a person with a rap sheet commits more crime, right? We all say that a person has to "man up" and take full responsibility for their actions. We all say that we weren't raised to commit (insert crime here), so why did that guy do it?
Sorry to disagree, but if a person can't get along within the very easy to live within boundaries of society and gets convicted of a felony crime, they blew their chance and need to pay the price that committing it entails. If that's a loss of some of their rights, they knew that going in and decided these things just weren't important enough to them to refrain from the act.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms". Someone important said that............
If a man can't be trusted in society then he should still be imprisoned or killed.
Exactly.
You pay the $50 fine and go home. WHOOPS...you now have a misdemeanor domestic. No more guns for YOU for the REST OF YOUR LIFE!
Let's take this one step farther.
Your Pubic Defender convinces you to agree to a plea, because it is safer than going to court, it only holds a light fine, guarantees no jail time, or whatever argument he/she uses. You pay your $50 fine and go home. Thankful that you have paid your dues, and this is OVER.
Time passes, life goes on, you meet your soul-mate, are married, get good jobs, buy a house, and start a family. Life is good.
Now 10-20-30 YEARS LATER, some dimwit in power decides to pass this BRAND NEW law.
Now 30 YEARS LATER, because of this OLD charge that YOU HAVE ALREADY PAID YOUR DUES FOR, you are no longer allowed to have firearms. Being as how this BRAND NEW LAW is retroactive.
Consider this...
Quoted from...Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, of the United States Constitution.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
How many law degrees does it take to figure out what this means???
"no ex post facto law shall be passed"
Most any third grader with a dictionary could figure this out.
ex post facto = RETROACTIVE
WHY IS THIS STILL A LAW???
Maybe because this is no longer a government of the people by the people OR for the people. [V]
quote:Originally posted by andrewsw16
You pay the $50 fine and go home. WHOOPS...you now have a misdemeanor domestic. No more guns for YOU for the REST OF YOUR LIFE!
Let's take this one step farther.
Your Pubic Defender convinces you to agree to a plea, because it is safer than going to court, it only holds a light fine, guarantees no jail time, or whatever argument he/she uses. You pay your $50 fine and go home. Thankful that you have paid your dues, and this is OVER.
Time passes, life goes on, you meet your soul-mate, are married, get good jobs, buy a house, and start a family. Life is good.
Now 10-20-30 YEARS LATER, some dimwit in power decides to pass this BRAND NEW law.
Now 30 YEARS LATER, because of this OLD charge that YOU HAVE ALREADY PAID YOUR DUES FOR, you are no longer allowed to have firearms. Being as how this BRAND NEW LAW is retroactive.
Consider this...
Quoted from...Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, of the United States Constitution.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
How many law degrees does it take to figure out what this means???
"no ex post facto law shall be passed"
Most any third grader with a dictionary could figure this out.
ex post facto = RETROACTIVE
WHY IS THIS STILL A LAW???
Maybe because this is no longer a government of the people by the people OR for the people. [V]
[:(]WHY has this NOT been ever challenged or taken to task in supreme court?????? Oh I know probably a dumb question but my God, when and where do we draw a line in the sand? I beat the livn hell out of a guy who was then 18, 16 years ago when I caught him attempting to rape my daughter. THEY ( the so called law) took ME to jail overnight of course, but still I have my guns and gonna keep em! it is my understanding that we are under NO obligation to obey ANY unconstitutional or unreasonable laws which would infringe directly upon the otherwise lawful liberties of the person in question..
quote:Originally posted by andrewsw16
You pay the $50 fine and go home. WHOOPS...you now have a misdemeanor domestic. No more guns for YOU for the REST OF YOUR LIFE!
Let's take this one step farther.
Your Pubic Defender convinces you to agree to a plea, because it is safer than going to court, it only holds a light fine, guarantees no jail time, or whatever argument he/she uses. You pay your $50 fine and go home. Thankful that you have paid your dues, and this is OVER.
Time passes, life goes on, you meet your soul-mate, are married, get good jobs, buy a house, and start a family. Life is good.
Now 10-20-30 YEARS LATER, some dimwit in power decides to pass this BRAND NEW law.
Now 30 YEARS LATER, because of this OLD charge that YOU HAVE ALREADY PAID YOUR DUES FOR, you are no longer allowed to have firearms. Being as how this BRAND NEW LAW is retroactive.
Consider this...
Quoted from...Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, of the United States Constitution.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
How many law degrees does it take to figure out what this means???
"no ex post facto law shall be passed"
Most any third grader with a dictionary could figure this out.
ex post facto = RETROACTIVE
WHY IS THIS STILL A LAW???
Maybe because this is no longer a government of the people by the people OR for the people. [V]
Methinks, Pickenup, that we have a government of, by and for people and the laws they create. What we do not have anymore is a government that respect the law of the land.
If a crime has a certain minimum punishment when committed and a person is convicted and serves his time, when that minimum punishment is increased, we do not go back and re-incarcerate the person to satisfy the new law.
But in a very real sense, this is exactly what we are doing in the case of misdemeanor domestic violence.
The only reason I can see that this has not been challenged vigorously is that no one, including the GOA and the SAF wants to publicly side with a wife-beater. The PR ramifications are simply too great. Which brings us back, of course, to the fact that we have a government of people, by people and for people. People with emotions who will allow them to stand in the way of proper application of the Constitution.
Brad Steele
Another step on the path...
Now there comes a time when some people relinquish those rights through a violation of other's rights in that society. These people people voluntarily lose their rights when they violate the rights of another.
For instance, when one person commits a crime against another and illegally uses a firearm in the commission of that crime, they have voluntarily given up that right to to own under the 2nd amendment b/c the 2nd amendement is not a license to violate the rights of other citizens.
For example, we all enjoy the right of free speech under the 1st amendment but when you yell "FIRE" in a theater, when there is no fire, you have voluntarily given up that right to free speech because you have unecessarily endangered the good of the people in that theater.
The BOR is not a license to do as we please, but rather a protection of that right granted by our creator, for the government to protect us all in a more just society. When someone violates their right protected under the BOR, they voluntarily give up that right in sacrifice for the better of society.
This is the essence of the BOR.