I cannot believe that so many people side with an overbearing government versus the rights of innocent citizens.
I suppose if my car is hit at an intersection by a drunk driver, since my car is evidence the cops have a right to seize it until the case is over? Because the police don't make the determination of whether to charge someone, the DA does?
And by the way, if you don't think that the cops ever make a determination of guilt or innocence at the scene, why do they carry handcuffs? If they don't decide there is sufficient evidence of guilt, they don't arrest. If they see sufficient evidence, you get hauled away.
Go ahead, sit idly by while your rights are further eroded.
I am trying to offer a solution.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Suggestion For New Law”
- Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:18 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Suggestion For New Law
- Replies: 17
- Views: 2765
- Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:09 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Suggestion For New Law
- Replies: 17
- Views: 2765
Re: Suggestion For New Law
That is the whole point. Seizing the good guy's gun is not evidence of anything. The good guy didn't commit the crime, so the gun isn't evidence.
Seizing the bad guy's gun is obviously evidence that he was committing a crime, but if the good guy isn't charged with a crime, his gun is not evidence.
Seizing the bad guy's gun is obviously evidence that he was committing a crime, but if the good guy isn't charged with a crime, his gun is not evidence.
- Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:53 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Suggestion For New Law
- Replies: 17
- Views: 2765
Suggestion For New Law
I'm not sure how often in Texas a good guy's gun gets confiscated by police if it's used in legitimate self defense. Could vary a lot depending upon jurisdiction. Some states apparently do this routinely, even if it is obviously a legitimate self defense shooting. Of course, all that this does is deprive a law abiding citizen of his right to keep possession of his weapon. He may never get it back, or only get it back much later, probably beaten up, rusted, not maintained, and only after hiring a lawyer to intervene.
How about a law that says police may NOT confiscate a citizen's weapon as evidence unless they make the determination that the shooting was not self defense and actually arrest the citizen. Then, if the citizen is not indicted within a certain limited time period, his gun MUST be returned to him within a given number of days.
As a further part of this, I would also love to see the arresting agency made liable for any damages to the gun as a result of poor storage, handling, etc., but that's probably hoping for too much.
Charles, is this totally out of the question?
How about a law that says police may NOT confiscate a citizen's weapon as evidence unless they make the determination that the shooting was not self defense and actually arrest the citizen. Then, if the citizen is not indicted within a certain limited time period, his gun MUST be returned to him within a given number of days.
As a further part of this, I would also love to see the arresting agency made liable for any damages to the gun as a result of poor storage, handling, etc., but that's probably hoping for too much.
Charles, is this totally out of the question?