Presser in a nutshell

I'm glad you lot are such legal scholars.

Carrying a gun is not per se illegal

One of the problems with you lot is that you are really super at taking things out of context.

We have two different phrases at work here

• per se--on its own
• illegal per se means that the act is inherently illegal

An act is illegal per se without extrinsic proof of any surrounding circumstances such as lack of scienter (knowledge) or other defenses. Acts are made illegal per se by statute, constitution or case law.

For example, Many drunk driving laws make driving with a blood alcohol content over a certain limit (such as 0.05% or 0.08%) an act which is illegal per se.

This quote means that carrying a gun is not illegal without some other contributing factor.  In the case of open carry, that would mean causing a disturbance, or in the case of the NC statute being armed to the terror of the people.

Thus, while carrying a gun without any other factor is not illegal--the fact that you have caused terror in the public (even if they are being "hoplophobes" in your opinion) is what makes the act illegal.

Again, the fact that you feel the need to "educate" to seeing armed people in publi the public betrays your attempted defence of saying this was innocent, since deep down you must know this is not normal behaviour.

It is not your unqualified opinion that will keep you out of trouble, but knowing the law.

Your interpretation might be more detrimental than you would believe.

But, I know that you know much more about the law than I do.  You can live with the results of your knowledge.

Question

If a large group of people were to vandalise a multi-national corporation and destroy one million dollars worth of property--would you support that action?

I'll reveal the answer to why I am asking this in a later post.

Michigan Man Gets 7 to 17 years for Accidental Shooting Death

Local news reports

An 18-year-old Muskegon man has been sentenced to 7 1/2 to 17 years in prison for accidentally killing a longtime friend while they were playing with a gun.

Muskegon County Circuit Judge Timothy G. Hicks issued the sentence Monday to Vance T. Thompson.

Before receiving the sentence, Thompson read a letter saying he feels devastated by the death of 17-year-old Charles White Jr. and says it was like losing a twin.

They say Thompson fled after the Nov. 19, 2013, shooting, then tried to discard the gun.

Thompson pleaded no-contest July 9 to involuntary manslaughter, evidence tampering and possessing a firearm during a felony. A “no contest” plea isn’t an admission of guilt but allows for conviction.

The 6 ways to ensure that you go to jail for an accidental shooting:

1. do it in a residential area
2. lie to the police
3. hide evidence
4. have neck tattoos
5. have dred locks
6. be black or Hispanic

The article mentions the first three but I'll bet he had more than that.

California Wait Period Doesn't Apply to Gun Owners

from ssgmarkcr

    I'm not sure if you've seen this interesting development out west, but it seems to make good sense to me.  And interestingly, the judge who made this decision was nominated by then President Clinton. 

"A federal judge has overturned part of a California law requiring a 10-day waiting period for gun buyers, ruling that it does not apply to those who already own firearms.

 

U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii of Fresno ruled late last week that "10-day waiting periods impermissibly violate the Second Amendment" for gun-buyers who already passed background checks or are authorized to carry concealed weapons.

 

"There is no evidence that a 'cooling off period,' such as that provided by the 10-day waiting period, prevents impulsive acts of violence by individuals who already possess a firearm. A waiting period for a newly purchased firearm will not deter an individual from committing impulsive acts of violence with a separate firearm that is already in his or her possession," he said in his ruling."

"Ishii delayed the effective date of his order for six months to give the state time to appeal or the Legislature time to adopt new rules. For instance, he suggested lawmakers might want to change state law to allow law enforcement officials to delay the delivery of a firearm if they have reason to suspect that the buyer intends to illegally pass on the weapon to someone else."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-wait-period-apply-gun-owners-25121229

Does this picture bother you?

Are you happy to see these kids waving guns around (despite their fingers being on the trigger)?

Do you see a difference between the picture above and this one?

How about this one?

Is this what you want us to see as normal?

BTW, the kids at the top are a Palestinians in Gaza.

Quote of the Day

Open Carry Normal?

Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation.  When police are called to a “man with a gun” call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed.  Officers may have no idea that these people are simply “exercising their rights.”  Consequently, the law enforcement response is one of “hypervigilant urgency” in order to protect the public from an armed threat.  Should the gun carrying person fail to comply with a law enforcement instruction or move in a way that could be construed as threatening, the police are forced to respond in kind for their own protection.  It’s well and good in hindsight to say the gun carrier was simply “exercising their rights” but the result could be deadly. Simply put, it is not recommended to openly carry firearms

San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, “Unloaded Open Carry,” Jan. 14, 2010, available at http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/San-Mateo-County-Sheriffs-Office_Unloaded-Open-Carry.pdf

See also:
smartgunlaws.org/open-carrying-policy-summary/