Makiaveli

Wouldn't this go back to a HCP is just a defense to the crime of carrying a weapon? So failing to reply in the affirmative would be effectively concealing the fact that you are committing a crime. Technically.

Me being fiscally responsible and driving a paid for '97 Crown Vic with a family installed dent in the side should have ****-all to do with me being pulled over. Before I got a "professional" type job, I had long hair. That shouldn't be a justification to harass me. Lastly, if I choose to help save the planet (has nothing to do with being lazy ) by virtue of not wasting water to wash my car, that also should not have a bearing on it. Now I get that my car looks like a drug-dealer's car. If I needed a haircut 6 weeks ago, I get that an officer is going to be itching for an excuse to pull me over. If I give him one, I have no problem with it. But your attitude that I should have to buy a nicer car and adjust my grooming standards etc etc in order to not be harassed irks me. I get that you don't mean it that way, and maybe I am tired and reading too much into it. So no hard feelings, well no permanent ones anyway, Deal?

FTR, that isn't what I was suggesting either. I didn't say all felonies should be capital. Just that if you commit a crime so heinous, that permanently taking away your ability to defend yourself (assuming it covers all weapons and not just firearms) is a justifiable option, then it was such a serious crime you should have forfeited your right to life. To be clear, I am not talking about asinine crimes like toilets, I am talking about rape, murder etc.

That thought hit me earlier but you beat me to it. Maybe hand it to someone going in?

Ok an old law would cover what I was fixing to say which was I remember my mom talking about it many moons ago (I'm over 40 to give you an idea). Thanks for the update

I have to agree with this. I would imagine the odds are truly astronomical, but what if he was faking or recovered enough to grab your gun, punch you etc? Unfortunately, my wife is a Nurse Practitioner, and so I think she is legally obligated to assist. I guess sticking the barrel in his ear will suffice for security

There is plenty of evidence out there that one single blow to the head from a punch can cause permanent damage. I think the more important issue is why are you in the fight? If this guy was headed to the restaurant and was followed to his destination, that's one thing. But if he stopped in order to actually engage the other man in a verbal argument, then he might have been held liable even if the other guy initiated physical force. But my main point is even me, being a 44 yr old IT nerd, could theoretically whack you hard enough to cause permanent damage to your brain etc. Or cause you to fall thus causing said damage. Even being 6'4", good luck convincing a jury I look "dangerous" **edit** Oops...thought this was a new thread..didn't realize I had already responded once already. Not deleting it since I said it, but no hard feelings if the mods want to....

I disagree that money is the only tool. Put the person to work to repair the damage, ie work gangs. I can see the point you are making, and with purely monetary crimes I personally agree. I also don't have a problem with many of the crimes you list. However, crimes against society are just that. The argument can be made that pollution etc harms all of us. (toilet laws are feel good laws and truly meaningless). Personally, I don't have a problem with creative sentencing. If some one chooses, and that's the key word chooses, to give up a right, then why not utilize that tool? Chemical (and in some jurisdictions physical is a option) castration has been used as an alternative to imprisonment for sexual offenders. Personally I think Drano would work better in that case, but that's beside the point. So if someone used a firearm in a crime, giving up the right to own one could be a viable option as opposed to a longer sentence. Prisons are expensive, and good luck getting restitution. So anything that reduces the expense without compromising safety is a good option. Note: I am not implying the current laws banning possession by felons is working, but I think that's a failure to impose appropriate sentences. See Escape from NY for an example of what I consider appropriate if someone repeatedly violates the law.

Isn't illegal to not comply? Granted said law may be unconstitutional but that never stopped them before....

True, would help with that as well which I hadn't thought about.

Thanks and forwarded the the link to some friends as well

Yikes....note to self. Also thanks to all for the ideas....

Ok so note to self. Take cash, and tell everyone my name is Bob, and that I am visiting from Memphis.

A: FTFY??? B: Sucks for his kids. C: Too bad this didn't happen before he had kids, for multiple reasons.

I was recently told by a LEO to say "I was in fear of my life and/or great bodily harm and I would like to talk to a lawyer." Point being if the officer believes it's a good shoot, he can legitimately say you stated you were in fear of your life. Also, as we understood it, nothing else you said after that point could be used since you asked for a lawyer.

It was fine, got the point across. I was just kidding around, though I never got past algebra in HS, and faked it in college.

I think the main thing would be being able to carry any where a LEO can carry, as opposed to being limited to where you can carry with a HCP.

Apparently you understood more of it than me then. I mean I am smart, but never was any good with math once we stopped using +-/*

If my brain was working, that is what I would have said. At least I like to think that I could have come up with that. @Wyatt I completely agree with your apparent philosophy of if we all roll over, we will all get walked on. However, sometimes things are just done because it is the best way for ALL concerned. Sure if you only have one gun, then it's a hardship of sorts. But the alternative is either leaving a gun in the hands of a possible murderer with a good story, or codifying that the gun will be taken every single time no matter the circumstances, since once they start writing the law, I doubt they will leave a lot of discretionary powers for the police. Another thing to consider, do you really want those people to write up MORE laws?!? **EDIT** Oh yea, thanks again to MikePapa for your input.

I don't think I used the words improperly. I think the difference between us is that I don't consider the debt to be purely monetary. That and some damages are near impossible to account for. The victim of embezzlement for example, what could the company have done differently if they had had that money? Expanded? Succeeded in getting a contract they lost? Who knows? So how can the person pay back that debt?

Every couple of days on average. I too got caught up and not happy about it

Not disagreeing with you, but I think if you were his client, this is one of those times he would double his retainer

What he said

Good point...I totally spaced on that. Thanks for the info

I grant that the above is true. However, part of paying back their debt to society could include forfeiting the right to carry. Personally I think any crime that would justify such a penalty should be a capital offense, and we all know how effective the current laws are but I think my point stands.