Hero Defends Shop With Unregistered Gun

[Midnight Marauder]

Well, where I live you don't have to register or get a permit for a shotgun or a rifle. Just handguns and assault weapons.

There should be no registration of handguns.

Any weapon (by definition) is an 'assault weapon'.

Yup yup, we agree!

 

[Emma]

And this is where I usually part company with my friends on the right...

I also believe that once someone has served their time (prison AND all probation/parole) and paid their debt to society, they should have all rights restored to include their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.

 

[xsited1]

As a side note, it's interesting the MSNBC story didn't tell us if the hoodlum's handguns were registered.... I guess they leave that for us to assume they weren't.

And the old man's shotgun was bought decades ago, before registration was a requirement. And it's a shotgun, not a handgun.

Yeah, I notice that the story said he didn't have a permit for it. Not sure if that is the same thing as unregistered.

And I also am not sure he broke the law (which is why I put the disclaimer in my previous post). If he bought it decades ago isn't there some sort of antique clause, or grandfather clause in some of these laws?

Don't live in NY myself, and don't really care enough to research it for myself, but I'm not quite ready to believe the journalist just yet.

Well, where I live you don't have to register or get a permit for a shotgun or a rifle. Just handguns and assault weapons.

But I guess it didn't suit MSNBC's agenda for them to tell us if the perp's pistols were registered.

I believe you are required to register all guns in New York City. He'll probably get charged with possessing an unregistered firearm and the criminals will sue him for damages (and win).

 

[Emma]

Well, where I live you don't have to register or get a permit for a shotgun or a rifle. Just handguns and assault weapons.

There should be no registration of handguns.

Any weapon (by definition) is an 'assault weapon'.

Yup yup, we agree!

lol

I thought I felt a chill in the air

 

[Midnight Marauder]

And this is where I usually part company with my friends on the right...

I also believe that once someone has served their time (prison AND all probation/parole) and paid their debt to society, they should have all rights restored to include their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.

If they USED a gun in the commission of a felony crime, no. They bartered their right away right there.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Yeah, I notice that the story said he didn't have a permit for it. Not sure if that is the same thing as unregistered.

And I also am not sure he broke the law (which is why I put the disclaimer in my previous post). If he bought it decades ago isn't there some sort of antique clause, or grandfather clause in some of these laws?

Don't live in NY myself, and don't really care enough to research it for myself, but I'm not quite ready to believe the journalist just yet.

Well, where I live you don't have to register or get a permit for a shotgun or a rifle. Just handguns and assault weapons.

But I guess it didn't suit MSNBC's agenda for them to tell us if the perp's pistols were registered.

I believe you are required to register all guns in New York City. He'll probably get charged with possessing an unregistered firearm and the criminals will sue him for damages (and win).

The dead perps' families and the surviving perps.... Suing from jail. Whether they win or not.... That's always in question. This old man needs to hire Denny Crane and Alan Shore right now!

 

[Emma]

And this is where I usually part company with my friends on the right...

I also believe that once someone has served their time (prison AND all probation/parole) and paid their debt to society, they should have all rights restored to include their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.

If they USED a gun in the commission of a felony crime, no. They bartered their right away right there.

Told ya

Once they have paid their debt in full, I believe their rights should be restored, regardless. If they are not to be trusted with that right, then they have no business being out of prison or off probation in the first place.

 

[Soaring]

Like I said, it is a dumb law to have to register a gun. The criminals don't use registered guns so the police can trace a crime back to them if they find the gun used in the crime. All that law does is punish the lawabiding citizen who is using his second amendment rights to protect himself when the police are not aroung. Here is what we have in Texas, and should be adopted nationwide.

On March 27, 2007, Governor Rick Perry signed Senate Bill 378 into law, making Texas a "Castle Doctrine" state which came into effect September 1, 2007.[209] Residents lawfully occupying a dwelling may shoot a person who "unlawfully, and with force, enters or attempts to enter the dwelling", or who removes or attempts to remove someone from that dwelling, or who commits or attempts to commit a "qualifying" felony such as burglary, arson, rape, aggravated assault, robbery or murder. In addition, a shooter who has a legal right to be wherever he/she is at the time of a defensive shooting has no "duty to retreat" before being justified in shooting; the "trier of fact" may not consider whether the person retreated when deciding whether the person was justified in shooting.

Gov. Perry also signed H.B. 1815, a bill that allows any Texas resident to carry a concealed handgun in the resident's motor vehicle without a CHL or other permit.[210] Chapter 46, Section 2 of the Penal Code states that it is in fact not "Unlawful Carry of a Weapon" for a person to carry a weapon while in a motor vehicle they own or control, or to carry while heading directly from the person's home to that car. However, lawful carry while in a vehicle requires these three critical qualifiers: (1) the gun must be concealed; (2) the carrier cannot be involved in criminal activities; and (3) the carrier cannot be a member of a criminal gang.[211][212]

Possession of automatic firearms, short-barreled shotguns or rifles, or silencers is permitted, if the weapons have been federally registered in accordance with the National Firearms Act.[207

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I didn't read the link, but if his gun was unregistered, doesn't that make him a criminal as well?

No... as there is no means for a law in the US to serve justice where it undermines the unalienable rights of the individual. Thus such laws which serve to do so are immoral and are to be disregarded.

 

[Emma]

It has nothing to do with morality.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I didn't read the link, but if his gun was unregistered, doesn't that make him a criminal as well?

No... as there is no means for a law in the US to serve justice where it undermines the unalienable rights of the individual. Thus such laws which serve to do so are immoral and are to be disregarded.

It has nothing to do with morality.

No?

ROFLMNAO...

Notice friends how morality is something untowards for this Leftist...

Allow a demonstration...

Emma, what is Morality as you understand it.

Now here is how Webster's defines 'morality...'

mo·ral·i·ty [mə rállətee, maw rállətee]
(plural mo·ral·i·ties)
n
1. accepted moral standards: standards of conduct that are generally accepted as right or proper
2. how right or wrong something is: the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards
3. virtuous behavior: conduct that is in accord with accepted moral standards
4. moral lesson: a lesson in moral behavior


So you go ahead dumbass... explain what you've been indoctrinated to falsely believe what morality is.

 

[Sidestreamer]

I didn't read the link, but if his gun was unregistered, doesn't that make him a criminal as well?

Well then we should arrest him immediately for likely saving the lives of his employees.

I think he should be thanked for saving all those people, then immediately arrested for shooting someone with an unregistered gun. He is a criminal. A hero, but a criminal who broke the law.

Interesting dichotomy if you ask me.

I have seen so many people say over and over, if you break the law, you should be punished. This guy should be thanked and prosecuted.

Well according to the article the police seized his shotgun but decided not to press charges.

I regret the seizure. Obviously the gun was used for a righteous purpose.

As I learned living where I am right now, when seconds count, the cops are minutes away. I think the shop owner did exactly what he should have done.

 

[Sidestreamer]

It has nothing to do with morality.

There are laws that simply aren't enforced because they're simply archaic, sometimes even bad.

The shop owner defended the lives of his employees doing what he did based on the story. Do we really need a prosecutor there tied up on that?

 

[Sidestreamer]

As a side note, it's interesting the MSNBC story didn't tell us if the hoodlum's handguns were registered.... I guess they leave that for us to assume they weren't.

And the old man's shotgun was bought decades ago, before registration was a requirement. And it's a shotgun, not a handgun.

Yeah, I notice that the story said he didn't have a permit for it. Not sure if that is the same thing as unregistered.

And I also am not sure he broke the law (which is why I put the disclaimer in my previous post). If he bought it decades ago isn't there some sort of antique clause, or grandfather clause in some of these laws?

Don't live in NY myself, and don't really care enough to research it for myself, but I'm not quite ready to believe the journalist just yet.

Well, where I live you don't have to register or get a permit for a shotgun or a rifle. Just handguns and assault weapons.

But I guess it didn't suit MSNBC's agenda for them to tell us if the perp's pistols were registered.

Well, two of them are dead, and none of them actually fired, so what's the point?

 

[Soaring]

All 4 of them should be dead. I guess the old man's vision isn't what it used to be, or they would all 4 be dead. Whether they fired or not is not the question. They brandished weapons in an attempt to rob a store, and the store owner protected not only his store and its' holdings, he also protected his staff. Do any of you really have any feelings for the perps? If you do, you need to take a reality check and stop watching too many movies.

 

[Emma]

No... as there is no means for a law in the US to serve justice where it undermines the unalienable rights of the individual. Thus such laws which serve to do so are immoral and are to be disregarded.

It has nothing to do with morality.

No?

ROFLMNAO...

Notice friends how morality is something untowards for this Leftist...

Allow a demonstration...

Emma, what is Morality as you understand it.

Now here is how Webster's defines 'morality...'

mo·ral·i·ty [mə rállətee, maw rállətee]
(plural mo·ral·i·ties)
n
1. accepted moral standards: standards of conduct that are generally accepted as right or proper
2. how right or wrong something is: the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards
3. virtuous behavior: conduct that is in accord with accepted moral standards
4. moral lesson: a lesson in moral behavior


So you go ahead dumbass... explain what you've been indoctrinated to falsely believe what morality is.

It has nothing to do with morality, dumbass.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's neither moral nor immoral. It just is.

Do you really want to argue that our rights be based upon the whim of what is "generally accepted as right or proper" or "in accord with accepted moral standards"?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

And this is where I usually part company with my friends on the right...

I also believe that once someone has served their time (prison AND all probation/parole) and paid their debt to society, they should have all rights restored to include their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.

If they USED a gun in the commission of a felony crime, no. They bartered their right away right there.

Told ya

Once they have paid their debt in full, I believe their rights should be restored, regardless. If they are not to be trusted with that right, then they have no business being out of prison or off probation in the first place.

Uh-huh.... And that "debt in full" is what the judge says it is, what the LAW says it is. No?

 

[tigerbob]

I feel potentially sorry for the families of the victims

They weren't victims, they were predators, perps who picked the wrong target.

OK, well I feel potentially sorry for the families of whatever you want to call them.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I feel potentially sorry for the families of the victims

They weren't victims, they were predators, perps who picked the wrong target.

OK, well I feel potentially sorry for the families of whatever you want to call them.

I call them exactly what they are, and that's NOT "victims."

If it will make you feel better, call the family members of the dead perps, the victims of the dead perps, because that's what they are.

 

[tigerbob]

And this is where I usually part company with my friends on the right...

I also believe that once someone has served their time (prison AND all probation/parole) and paid their debt to society, they should have all rights restored to include their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.

I disagree, but then I didn't agree with your earlier post (17) either.