Here's hoping this bill passes in TN.

Legally.

 

Great example.

Another one: Seeing someone fumbling with one's mail at the mailbox outside. Heading outside, yelling at the perp to knock it off and head elsewhere ... only to be turned on by the perp. Most folks who won't engage their brains on this type of thing imagine it's "about the mail" and "a death sentence for pieces of mail" isn't justifiable. But, it ain't about the mail. It's about thwarting the violent escalation and putting it down before damage to the innocent occurs, same as any other crime of actual or imminent violence of the sort.

As with your medicines. It ain't about "pills." It's about the threat of death if a few hours without them is forced upon you.

Same with a lawnmower or stack of tools in the shed, or a bicycle out at the side of the house. Confronting someone caught in the act is currently justifiable; as is lawful response to any additional crime of violence attempted by a perp who feels offended at having been caught and commanded to halt. Ain't about the "stuff." It's about the threat to life when demanding the perp halts when it's clear the perp seeks an additional crime of violence tacked on the list.

Pretty simple, really.

 

So don't ban anyone from doing anything because they will just do it anyway, banning a abuser from seeing the person they abused for example, just tell them to fill their boots.

Yes people do shoot people illegally, you want them to be able to do it legally, for petty theft etc. I would hate to live in a country with your idea of law and order, be able to shoot anyone for anything, seems to sum it up.

 

Yeah, its working well in Texas.

The violent crime rate in Texas is 4.1 incidents per 1,000, compared to 3.7 nationwide and 4.4 reported last year. The state's property crime rate is 23.7, which is nearly two incidents higher than the national rate of 22.0.

Like it or not it does have the authority to regulate, and does regulate.

 

People can make that argument in court, and see how they get on.

Who decides what laws are constitutional or not, you.

 

The firearm law is not intended to keep a felon from acquiring a weapon, but if caught with it it puts him or her away again. I would have thought you understood that.

 

But you see, it really doesn't matter if YOU think that the government doesn't have the right to regulate firearms. We do not endow you with that power. The fact is that our government does regulate firearms and as long as the courts say it is legal, it is legal. Our prisons are full of people who don't believe that a particular law is valid, constitutional or that it applies to them. If we need to, we can build more.

 

You don't get to decide what is constitutional. Sorry Dude, it's a hard knock life.

 

For me this is simple the Bundys were not convicted of anything therefore they aren't felons.

Come and steal from me and I catch you in the act you have two options #1 is not good for you #2 is your best bet. #1= resistance on your part, #2 = hands behind your head.

Would I shoot? Only one way to find out. But it matters not what you are trying to steal it's the very act that sorely offends me!

 

Did you earn it? Was it a gift If not it's not yours.

 

If caught in the act and you react with anger or violence, yes, I would most likely apply pressure to the bang switch. If I came home and found something missing I wouldn’t hunt anyone down. This is a good law to protect people in self defense shootings that some crack head thought was only going to be theft but then turned aggressive when the owner shows up unexpectedly.

 

A good example of the distinction is in the news, in the past couple of days. (Can't seem to find the article.) Someone caught a burglar at the home ... then proceeded to chase that burglar out of the house, ending up shooting the guy. He's now charged with the crime of that battery, his person being no longer threatened by the person who'd ran away.

For me, the minor crime isn't the point; but the threat to the lives of innocents is. Threaten the innocent, and you're now committing another, second crime that has zero to do with the first. And it's against that, the threat of the damage from that that everyone has justifiable authority to stand against. Nobody's legally forced in the U.S. to take one for the Gipper, when a criminal feigns offendedness to then turn upon a person violently. Commit that second crime ... well, you get what you get.

 

When it comes to the use of deadly force things can go to hades in a handbasket really quick. Shooting someone who is running away with your stuff is almost guaranteed to get you charged in nearly every state in this country.

Nine years ago Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland got life in prison over his killing of a robber.

Two young cretins, one armed with a firearm, attempted to rob Ersland's pharmacy. Ersland shot the unarmed robber and chased the armed robber from the store, shooting at same. Ersland returned to the store and proceeded to finish off the incapacitated unarmed robber, shooting him five times: Wrong answer!!!

Ersland may have been able to skate but he lied to the police. Publicity hound Ersland also recounted his heroic tale on TV.

It was all caught on the store camera. Four people were found guilty of murder; Ersland, the two career criminal advisors to the teenage thugs and the surviving robber.

Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber (nbcnews.com)