Heartland Patriot wrote:txjim42 wrote:Modesto homeowner shoots intruder http://t.co/Ca4Zaref" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Stanfield had not gotten far enough into the investigation to determine if the homeowner's gun had been registered or if he was allowed to have a firearm.
This line from the above story really rubs me the wrong way.
![Texas Flag :txflag:](./images/smilies/texasflag.gif)
Its California. Even if the homeowner TECHNICALLY has the right to defend themselves within the home, the system out there will go to great lengths to get back at the homeowner for doing so. I have respect for the vast majority of men and women in law enforcement, but I do question the motivation of those who enforce laws such as this sort of thing there in California.
Previously owned guns do not have to be registered. Newly purchased guns must be registered and guns brought in from out of state must be registered.
I suspect this was a reply to a question from a reporter wanting to know such important facts for his story. He probably knew many of his readers would want to know if this vigilante/villain was complying with the letter of the law, so hopefully he could be punished for his violent deeds. To me this would be the case, rather than the police officer saying he was planning to look into it.
As more and more criminals are shot, injured or killed (such as the 13 year old boy in Alabama) some people will want a change in the law to not allow citizen's to defend themselves, as the current law is leading to punishment with out trial. Plus the criminals are not being given the chance to rehabilitate themselves into productive citizens.