"People are already attacking me on Facebook saying I'm against the 2nd Amendment," she says. She clarified that homeowners would still be allowed to defend their lives, but not using firearms. Using a firearm to fight an intruder would lead to legal problems for the victim. [More]
No doubt she's a gun-grabber, but she's saying "No."
Here's the bill. Anyone familiar enough to parse the language and identify hidden pitfalls?
Before passing things along as true, I kind'a like to make sure first.
[Via bondmen]
5 comments:
Well, this must be subtle. I don't see thing one in here about firearms, only deadly force.
What I do see is that you are no longer allowed to resist a robbery with deadly force, and I don't see any wording (even before the proposed changes) that lets you resist a common assault (other than sexual) committed by force other than deadly. For example, if somebody plans to break down your door, incapacitate you with pepper spray, tie you to a chair, and torture you (other than sexually), I don't see any recourse.
One thing I do see is the limitation of "stand your ground" to your own habitation, and not to any place where you have a right to be present, which is objectionable to any free man.
The changes in the uncolored sections seem all either clerical or positive.
It should be illegal for Politicians or celebrities to have armed security of any sort. If they are attacked or threatened, just retreat.
Actually, I didn't get very far past this:
"Each bill attacks the constitutionally granted rights from various angles."
I would think that on a very basic level, a pro-RKBA organization would have a working knowledge of what 2A does, and does not.
Per US v Cruikshank:
'The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.'
MAJOR FAIL on the part of Lone Star Gun Rights
Good catch. I passed right over it.
Regardless of her 'clarifications' (aka obfuscations), barring the right of self preservation in one's home is the nose under the tent to UK like bans on all defensive actions, anywhere. And along with those bans on self preservation you must expect concurrent bans on any/every useful defensive tool.
Run this woman out of town on a rail, pronto.
Post a Comment