Deanimator
Member
He committed a felonious assault with a deadly weapon. That's not in dispute.
That's enough to make him a prohibited felon, upon either plea or conviction.
Should this man lose the right to own firearms for life?
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
That's enough to make him a prohibited felon, upon either plea or conviction.
stonebuster
Member
If the article is accurate he pulled his weapon in public when he wasn't in any real danger. He's fortunate the other guy wasn't armed and didn't shoot him when he pulled his weapon. Innocent bystanders as well as the two of them could have been hit. He should consider himself lucky if he doesn't go to jail.
Not to get political but Trump Derangement Syndrome is real! More than one person acting irrationally because of a simple red hat.
Deanimator
Member
It's impossible to tell to whom you're speaking, but it's irrelevant.
Given that the suspect committed a felonious assault with a deadly weapon, it's POST-crime all the way.
His lawyer will be BEGGING for a plea. When he takes that, or is convicted, he's going to be a FELON and hence a prohibited person.
He's going to lose his concealed carry credential AND his right to own firearms.
Welcome to the "resistance" pal...
Vern Humphrey
Member
Let me put it this way, if he had pointed a gun at me and said, "It's a good day to die," he would have had to carry out his threat -- because I would have taken extreme defensive measures.
And there it is....... "he's going to lose his concealed carry credential AND his right to own firearms.." You mean that right that states "shall not be infringed". My point here is that you should not strip the rights of anyone only because you "feel" that they "might" do something illegal. A Constitutional Republic doesn't work that way. But a Democracy or a Socialist form of Govt. does.
Last edited:
Well, if he had the drop on you like it seemed to be in this situation and then walked away back to his car you might be in trouble.
You can’t say he had the drop on me, turned his back and was walking away (therapeutically no longer a threat) and I drew my firearm and shot him in the back.
If you tried to draw and shoot while he had the drop on you it could go poorly for you.
Last edited:
But if he pleas, and assuming he doesn't have a prior record, isn't there a good possibility he isn't convicted of a felony?
Admitedly, I don't know enough about the federal and state laws in effect here, or any case law in similar situations.
Deanimator
Member
There's no reason why he can't plea to a felony and get no jail time as part of the plea agreement.
I'd bet money that even IF he pleas to a misdemeanor, one of the terms of the plea will be him surrendering his concealed carry credential and all of his firearms, and giving up his right to own firearms in the future.
mdauben
Member
You seem to be having a problem understanding that, the moment he pulled his gun absent a credible threat to his own life or someone else's, he committed a crime. There is no "feel" or "might" involved.
Tinman357
Member
Nothing "pre crime" about it. If the article is accurate, the man committed assault with a deadly weapon. A felony. Base upon the outcome of the trial, he will more than likely spend time in jail. Lose his right to own a gun, as a felon should.
If he pleas down to a misdemeanor, I would hope that comes with a psychological evaluation. Then, give him his rights back. Any future violence, throw the book at him.
If he pleas down to a misdemeanor, I would hope that comes with a psychological evaluation. Then, give him his rights back. Any future violence, throw the book at him.
Deanimator
Member
The resistance inevitably immolates each other and themselves.
I hope he enjoys being a disarmed victim in waiting. No doubt he's in favor of "common sense gun controls".
Besides, he doesn't need a gun. The police will protect him. I suggest he move to Broward County...
CLP
member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,397
I disagree with that. I don't think all transgressions are deserving of second chances. This one in particular- "A Tennessee man was charged after pulling a gun on a man and women and flipping them off at a Bowling Green Sam’s Club for wearing “Make America Great Again” caps, according to police."
No, he shouldn't be able to possess firearms. And he should spend time in prison/jail for what he did.
entropy
Member
And the whole point of most of our posts is that there should not be a 'protected class' of society. Do I go pulling guns on people whose T-shirts or hats offend me? Even if they egg me on? (and there are plenty of T-shirts and hats out there that do-Che Guevara shirts, for instance.) No, I do not, because I am a sane and rational person. (Stop snickering....) This person clearly is not, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Fortunately, few of them are well trained. OTOH, if they were, this incident wouldn't have happened.
Rage and access to weapons is as deadly or more so than the combination in Pat Riot's avatar. Many of the "Peter Pan" adult adolescents that certain agendas have produced in our society have difficulty expressing their anger, and having handy a device that to them defines power to resolve issues, cannot use rational thought to realize why this is a bad idea, should never touch a gun. Fortunately, this usually resolves itself, as most of such folk would rather catch their own feces and eat them than touch a gun. But apparently, not all. To me, this person's conduct while armed is more than enough reason to prevent him from owning guns ever again.
AlexanderA
Member
Hmm... It seems that we're having an argument here between two 2nd Amendment absolutists, Deanimator and Drail. Odd.
BTW, let me say once again that the U. S. is a constitutional republic and a democracy. There is no inconsistency between the two.
doubleh
Member
According to the article the guy with the gun only flipped off the couple with the hat, then walked away. The guy with the hat followed him and put his hands in his face escalating the incident, then the guy pulled his gun although there is no photographic evidence that he did. After the verbal exchange he again walked away and the guy followed him outside and continued to try to escalate the situation. In my opinion two idiots met and had words and one was very lucky that his continued stupidity didn't result in him getting shot. The gun wielder should lose his concealed carry license and pay a misdemeanor fine. There is no law against stupidity to charge the other person in this incident with.
Speedo66
Member
“Should this man lose the right to own firearms for life?”
Hopefully, this isn’t a real question, I think everyone knows the answer.
The real question should be, how much damage does an idiot like this do to our ability to possess firearms, which continues to come under increased scrutiny?
Hopefully, this isn’t a real question, I think everyone knows the answer.
The real question should be, how much damage does an idiot like this do to our ability to possess firearms, which continues to come under increased scrutiny?
AlexanderA
Member
That puts a different slant on things. It seems that the "victim" was the first to touch the other party. Drawing the gun, then, could arguably have been in self-defense. The way this is resolved is for the gun-drawer to plead guilty to misdemeanor assault and voluntarily give up his carry license. His right to possess guns going forward should not be affected. Both the participants were stupid, and let their emotions overcome their reason.
Folks, this is how civil wars start. No matter what the outcome of the 2020 election, half the country is going to think that the result is illegitimate.
Deanimator
Member
The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, NOT the imaginary "right" to commit felony assault with a deadly weapon.
There are two solutions to the extant issue:
- Disarm and imprison the perpetrator.
- Shoot him until he's no longer a threat.
entropy
Member
That may well have been his intent all along.
Deanimator, you hit that nail squarely on the head. Well thought and well put. Thank you. I'll take door No 2. The problem though is that in many places in the U.S. Joe Citizen is not even allowed to carry a gun so No. 2 is not an available option. I think every U.S. citizen should have an unalienable right to choose No 2. Our freedoms should not be "regional". But they are.
I don't see your point. He didn't just think about pulling out a gun like you would think about running someone over with a car. He pulled it out and pointed it at the "victim". That is a crime and he should be punished.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked