Flashermac Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 The guy is claiming it was an accident, which means he's claiming he doesn't know much about firearms. Now you're saying he knows how to double-thumb a revolver? That would really shoot holes in his defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Well i guess if this is his defence time will tell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Basically, the guy doesn't have much of a defense because he used a hand gun he was not suppose to possess and secondly, he did not have a gun permit. New York State will see that he probably pays dearly for those mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Yeah i guess you are right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Basically, the guy doesn't have much of a defense because he used a hand gun he was not suppose to possess and secondly, he did not have a gun permit. New York State will see that he probably pays dearly for those mistakes. I think that precise issue is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Ct. right now. That is, the "castle" theory and whether or not a state or municipal authority can regulate the possession of a firearm in/about one's home. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 The "castle" theory generally means you have the right to protect yourself and are innocent until found guilty. In non-castle States, you are guilty and you must prove other wise if you try defending yourself. The case before the US Supreme Court seems to be different. The case came about because of a person who uses a gun for work. The gentlemen wanted to take the gun home with him so he applied for a permit. He was denied. From this situation came several issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 The "castle theory" is based upon "a man's home is his 'castle'" and, by extension,his car and other places. He has a right to defend himself/his "castle". Just as search and seizure laws are not restricted to one's home, but also his car. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.