JerrySharrett
Senile Member
Scott, has the State of Florida declared Martial Law???
Whet the 'ell is going on down there??
Whet the 'ell is going on down there??
S
scott mims
Guest
Jerry..........
I dont know. Just saw it on the web and thought I would put it on here.
I dont know. Just saw it on the web and thought I would put it on here.
S
scott mims
Guest
.......... also this one (NJ Law)
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...Smart-Gun-Only-Chambered-In-22-LR-Costs-1-800
"The law requires that "no other type of handgun shall be sold or offered for sale by any registered or licensed firearms dealer in this State."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...Smart-Gun-Only-Chambered-In-22-LR-Costs-1-800
"The law requires that "no other type of handgun shall be sold or offered for sale by any registered or licensed firearms dealer in this State."
Last edited:
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
I have a brilliant idea. Why not just pass a law forbidding robbers, drug dealers, and other criminals from owning guns!!
W
wadebrown
Guest
It would be as effective any other gun restriction law as we know when a guy leaves his place to rob a liquor store does not want to violate any laws so he would not take a gun with him if it were against the law.
L
Larry Elliott
Guest
Some guy who'd just moved to Montana and had his garage broken into a couple of times in two or three months set up some kind of trap to "catch" whoever it was. Shot some German exchange student so now it's an international incident and all the anti-gunners are screeching about Montana's "Stand your ground" law. The guy who actually broke into the garage has been arrested and charged with the crimes too.
What the guy who did the shooting apparently didn't realize or understand is that in Montana you can only use lethal force to defend an occupied building not to defend property. I think he's going to be a guest of the state for a long while over this.
That all being said the law as it exists here, in your own home, or anywhere you can legally be the law says that you can brandish a firearm to ward off an attack, or use lethal force if you believe that you are at risk of death or severe bodily injury. There's been some screechy woman on the radio saying that Montana's self defense laws were perfectly good for 100 years and blah, blah, blah. They were if you had the money to hire a good lawyer to defend you in court if someone broke into your home and you shot them, all depending on the city or county attorney who in some cases would bust their tails to try to get a conviction for something. The way the law stands now is if you shoot someone who's illegally entered your home, you tell the cops/prosecutors that it was self defense and they have to prove otherwise. To my way of thinking THAT makes self defense a valid law and plea. Why should someone obeying the law be required to bankrupt himself with lawyers fees, while the crook gets to skate? That's what the progresso-commie anti-gunners want though.
Maybe I'm just old and crotchety too, but I'll only accept the first claim.
What the guy who did the shooting apparently didn't realize or understand is that in Montana you can only use lethal force to defend an occupied building not to defend property. I think he's going to be a guest of the state for a long while over this.
That all being said the law as it exists here, in your own home, or anywhere you can legally be the law says that you can brandish a firearm to ward off an attack, or use lethal force if you believe that you are at risk of death or severe bodily injury. There's been some screechy woman on the radio saying that Montana's self defense laws were perfectly good for 100 years and blah, blah, blah. They were if you had the money to hire a good lawyer to defend you in court if someone broke into your home and you shot them, all depending on the city or county attorney who in some cases would bust their tails to try to get a conviction for something. The way the law stands now is if you shoot someone who's illegally entered your home, you tell the cops/prosecutors that it was self defense and they have to prove otherwise. To my way of thinking THAT makes self defense a valid law and plea. Why should someone obeying the law be required to bankrupt himself with lawyers fees, while the crook gets to skate? That's what the progresso-commie anti-gunners want though.
Maybe I'm just old and crotchety too, but I'll only accept the first claim.
Hey Larry,
Got a new a one for ya.
Commie/PRO/LIB/NAZI.
Who by the way created the KKK, Planned Parenthood, Jim Crow laws, Soviet Union, and National Socialist Union of German workers.
The first "Progressive President" Woodrow Wilson is on record telling Congress that a black Govt. worker told him him he didn't want to drink from the same drinking fountain as whites.
It's in Wiki.
Got a new a one for ya.
Commie/PRO/LIB/NAZI.
Who by the way created the KKK, Planned Parenthood, Jim Crow laws, Soviet Union, and National Socialist Union of German workers.
The first "Progressive President" Woodrow Wilson is on record telling Congress that a black Govt. worker told him him he didn't want to drink from the same drinking fountain as whites.
It's in Wiki.
TomD
e publius unum
That pretty much says it all.