[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Rollei] re:OT 1911
- Subject: RE: [Rollei] re:OT 1911
- From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk >
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 07:37:25 -0700
It depends on the State law Jerry. In NJ they passed a law that
relieves intruders in your home of any right of lawsuit.
Technically you can shoot anyone who breaks into your home. If they are
wounded they would have to prove they were there for something other
than robbery, etc. Now California, that a different country....er...um
I mean state.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Lehrer [mailto:jerryleh ]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 6:25 PM
To: rollei us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] re:OT 1911
Just remember an injured attacker can sue your ass. And will!
But a dead one.......?
Don Williams wrote:
> At 09:27 PM 5/28/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>> Apologies because this is very off track.
>> Frank, nothing has changed.
>> Following the atrocious act of the Dunblane school massacre a few
>> years ago
>> (which no one condones) ALL licensed handguns were banned and had to
>> handed in. Compensation for the cost of the handguns was promised
>> but still
>> has not been paid to many individuals, so a keen club pistol shooter
>> "handed over and lost" two pistols tells me.
>> The US constitution with the right to bear arms would be welcomed by
>> some of
>> us in the UK.
> The U.S. Constitution is pretty much silent on the right of
> individuals to bear arms. More specifically, the second amendment
> reads as follows:
> Amendment II
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
> It's clear that if a person is a member of "A well regulated militia",
> he can bear arms as a member. Beyond that, the individual's right to
> bear arms has only been established on the basis of common law at that
> time, and general usage since that amendment was passed.
> Here is a quote from the Congressional Record dealing with a gun
> control bill, and you will see that it points towards tradition more
> than the Bill of Rights:
> 'The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American
> society. Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be
> debarred the use of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment
> banning any law "to prevent the people of the United States who are
> peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." The Constitution of
> the State of Arizona, for example, recognizes the "right of an
> individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State." '
> Note that I underlined "tradition" in that quote. It isn't underlined
> in the Gun Control Committee report from which it is extracted.
>> An Englishman's home is no longer his castle. An elderly
>> farmer who shot and killed one of two burglars coming up the stairs
>> to get
>> to him is being refused early release from a 7 year jail sentence
>> because he
>> does not show sufficient remorse and might offend again! The
>> burglars had
>> travelled 60 miles to break into his remote farm, which had been
>> broken into
>> a number of times before.
> That general situation holds in the U.S. as well. There are many
> cases in which a home-owner was prosecuted for killing a burglar.
> Burglars have sued and won civil cases in which they were shot while
> in the process of committing a robbery. It's unfortunate but the
> home-owner has the burden of proving he felt he was in mortal danger.
> As for me, I keep buckshot cartridges in my rifles, which will
> discourage anyone I shoot, but most likely not kill them.
>> Strict gun control over here controls the law abiding and prevents
>> defending themselves. The criminals have no trouble getting all the
>> they want.
>> Sorry, I have got it off my chest now.
> I think the original writer was Claude-
> Don Williams
> La Jolla, CA