The lone 19-year-old female clerk was confronted by two of the robbers, one of whom was armed with a black semi-automatic pistol. She was moved into a back room where she was bound with duct tape.Very scary. And once they have you bound, they can do anything they want to you, no matter how much muffled-howling terror or agony it causes. That they did not seems more a matter of luck for the clerk than anything else, because anyone lacking sufficient morality to pull a gun and bind a fellow human being for petty gain is capable of any evil.
And, of course, while 19 is old enough to serve in the military, well, California law wouldn't permit this young lady to even possess, let alone carry a handgun. Of course, it's a sure bet that the predators aren't allowed either, not that such formalities ever stop them.
7 comments:
That "Caught on Camera" show had security (ha!) camera footage of a check-cashing office being robbed. BIG man in a hooded sweatshirt with a bandanna over his face jumped the counter, put a pistol to the clerk's head, demanded money. She began giving hil all there was. He got angry and started binding her with duct tape and she started fighting. When the phone rang, he tried to pull the cord out of the wall but only succeeded in knocking the handset off the hook. It was the woman's husband. He heard the assault and called police, and got there BEFORE THE POLICE. The man escaped.
PATHETIC. She'll never feel safe anywhere again. Te company installed glass walls above the counter. That just means a hostage OUTSIDE the secure area needs to be taken to gain access.
Let the people carry. Everywhere, all the time.
And if they won't let you, do it anyway. Jobs can be replaced.
"...armed with a black semi-automatic pistol."
Oh, teh noez!! It was black!?
Why is this relevant? Is it somehow better to be assaulted with a silver revolver?
Authorized Journalists, right?
Pinkk is more friendly
Point of clarification: neither Federal nor California law will allow a licensed dealer to transfer a handgun to a person under 21. California will permit a person 18-20 to receive a handgun as a gift from a parent or grandparent. Concealed weapons licenses, as is well known, are ordinarily difficult to get in California's urban areas.
California has lots of problems in how it legally treats firearms, and it's perfectly fair to point them out. In this particular case, the law was misrepresented.
"[It is] lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power ... I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else."
- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690
John S: I'd appreciate a legal cite for that, No HSC? No DROS? No registration? No transfer to the new owner, which can only be done through a dealer--who by law can't provide one to the under 21? That's an obscure provision I truly did not know about.
And in any case, how would they legally buy ammo?
It's the immediate family transfer exception at Penal Code 12078(c)(1) and (c)(2); it does require the HSC, but no DROS, just file a form, the "Operation of Law or Intrafamilial Handgun Transaction Report".
But still can't buy ammo.
Post a Comment