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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.