Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2013, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,271,474 times
Reputation: 11416

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speleothem View Post
They're both criminals.
Pretty simple, really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2013, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 25,996,493 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
They're both criminals.
Pretty simple, really.
In other words, you would be happy if the man had been killed?

Technicaly being in violation of the stupid law saved his life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2013, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Louisiana
9,138 posts, read 5,799,525 times
Reputation: 7706
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
They're both criminals.
Pretty simple, really.

The guy defending his home is a criminal?
Amazing that people think like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2013, 01:04 PM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,477,951 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
The defense claims the gun was owned by the bodyguard, The state says the gun was unregistered - not registered to anyone.

Why didn't Bardwil have a legal registered firearm in his name? He could have owned a shotgun or got an exemption for a hand gun.

Gun laws in New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I read that same link in the O/P and what it actually says is firstly "for drawing an unlicensed fiream".

Now would I be correct in my assumption that weapons are licensed to individuals and the distinction here would be that the weapon was NOT licensed to him but rather the body guard?

Secondly the article later goes on to explain the fact the firearm is "legally registered to the body guard".

HENCE my deduction that while the firearm was in fact legally registered, Mr Bardill was not the person licensed to use it.

There are any number of conclusions we can come to but a judge is charged with making rational ones and HENCE my suggestion he should take the foregoing into consideration ALONG with the fact that the weapon was used to DETER a crime (without being fired) rather than COMMIT one.

I'm a gun contol advocate but here is where I draw the line; Mr Bardill may have screwed the pooch by not having his own weapon and license but he would certainly in any sane environment qualify as to the need for one.

I reiterate: the judge should admonish him for usage of a firearm not licensed to him but follow that up with a smack on the wrist with some community service bullcrap sentence or a complete discharge with the following:

"I am convinced it was not Mr Bardill's intent to commit a crime here but rather to prevent one as confirmed by the circumstances of being confronted within his own home by an intruder and showing remarkable restraint while being in physical possession of a firearm. I therefore am giving Mr Bardill a complete discharge and suggest he obtain legal permission to own a firearm before again resorting to the use of one under similar circumstance".

Common sense should be at the foundation of ALL laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2013, 01:13 PM
 
1,730 posts, read 1,361,669 times
Reputation: 760
Its all because libs are gutless cowards that would rather have their wives murdered and their kids raped than actually have a confrontation with a criminal.
TThat's why they don't want any law abiding citizen to have a weapon. They think everybody should be scared like them and just roll over, play dead and hope the bad man goes away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2013, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 11,559,730 times
Reputation: 4262
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
They're both criminals.
Pretty simple, really.
How does defending yourself turn you into a criminal? That's an idiotic statement. On top of that, they arrest him of suspicion of using an illegal firearm. What the hell?

After showing the cops footage from his home surveillance cameras, they arrested him under suspicions of owning an illegal firearm.
The businessman’s lawyer, Michael Bachner, told the New York Post that the gun is legally registered to the defendant’s bodyguard.


Read more: Man faces 3 years in jail for pulling 'unlicensed' gun on burglar inside his home - Washington Times
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2013, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,271,474 times
Reputation: 11416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speleothem View Post
The guy defending his home is a criminal?
Amazing that people think like that.
Missed the part that you typed about it being an unlicensed firearm?
You might want to read your thread header before you hit enter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2013, 01:51 PM
 
340 posts, read 495,531 times
Reputation: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
Missed the part that you typed about it being an unlicensed firearm?
You might want to read your thread header before you hit enter.
It was illegal in Germany for people of different races to marry, it was the same in many states up till the mid 60s, It was punishable by death to put salt on a rail road track in Alabama, in California it was illegal to eat an orange in a bath tub. What part of stupid laws don't you get?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2013, 01:54 PM
 
340 posts, read 495,531 times
Reputation: 203
In Colorado it was illegal for a man to kiss a woman while she is sleeping,
in Denver it was illegal to lend a vacuum cleaner to a neighbor
In Los Angeles, a man is legally entitled to beat his wife with a leather belt or strap, however, the strap cannot be more than two inches wide, unless he has his wife's consent to beat her
We can nullify stupid laws
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2013, 02:02 PM
 
340 posts, read 495,531 times
Reputation: 203
Wearing a sweatshirt inside-out is deemed to be a 'threatening misdemeanor'. in California. LOL I think we can say that stupid laws need not be followed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:59 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top