<p>
</p>
<p>That is but one possible lesson. But, as our safety officers teach, criminals favor the path of least resistance and least confrontation. The other more likely lesson to be absorbed is to target the neighborhoods where citizens choose to disarm themselves - easier and safer pickings. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is EXACTLY why restrictions on voting rights (such as ID) will never survive a court challenge. Or if they do, the second amendment people will have reason to worry.</p>
<p>But there are plenty of restrictions on gun rights. I don’t understand this at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not correct at all. </p>
<p>Voting is not a foundational right granted in the Constitution. There are age and citizenship qualifications to vote set forth in the Constitution. No such restrictions exist in the Bill of Rights re the foundational rights. This is why certain states can and do require ID to vote, to verify these stipulated qualifications. This is why an amendment was required to change voting age to 18 from 21. The 2nd Amendment is more than safe with voter ID laws in place.</p>
<p>@Flossy - “Restrictions” on gun ownership are quite different than saying one cannot own a gun. Note that restrictions on gun ownership are limited to type of gun, not to guns in general. A state cannot ban all guns. Machine guns, for example, have been federally outlawed, I believe, since the 30s.</p>
<p>A religion analogy is that are obviously legal “restrictions” on religions, which dictate human sacrifice. However, that is distinct from upfront restrictions or tests required to practice religion in general. No such upfront restrictions or tests are allowed.</p>
<p>“Machine guns, for example, have been federally outlawed, I believe, since the 30s.”</p>
<p>From a legal perspective, could someone explain to me why it would be ok to federally outlaw machine guns (assuming that’s correct, and I have no reason to believe that awcntdb isn’t knowledgeable) but it wouldn’t be ok to, for example, say that no one can personally own X number of guns?</p>
<p>^^ Actually, the number of guns purchased could be restricted, but it is just politically tough as nails to get done. However, that is a state by state issue. No way though could that get past enough congressman to be federally enacted. </p>
<p>We should probably get off this topic, but suffice it to say that there is a lot of disagreement about what the Constitution actually says, and means, about gun ownership. The makeup of the Supreme Court at any given time can have a major impact on what the Constitution says.</p>
<p>By the way, I’m always irked by this idea that driving is a “privilege.” Maybe, in a sense it is, but a state couldn’t deny a person a driver’s license based on his race or religion, or without due process.</p>
<p>There is a driving test involved, though. I doubt if a voting test would fly. But, yeah, we need to get back to the topic.</p>
<p>Here’s a thought experiment for everyone: how would your opinion of this case change if the homeowner didn’t have a gun, but chased off the burglars by grabbing a baseball bat? If he chased them with the bat, hit the woman in the back, how many more times could he hit her with the bat before you’d have trouble with his actions? Would it really be OK for him to beat her to death? That takes the gun issue out of the equation.</p>
<p>And with Hunt’s thought experiment, remember that the homeowner hypothetically chases the woman away, follows her off his property, disables her with a blow so that she is on the ground and not a threat to him, and beats her to death in an alley. Is this really OK?</p>
<p>“We should probably get off this topic, but suffice it to say that there is a lot of disagreement about what the Constitution actually says, and means, about gun ownership. The makeup of the Supreme Court at any given time can have a major impact on what the Constitution says.”</p>
<p>Hunt is correct. Here is the second amendment:</p>
<p>"AMENDMENT II</p>
<p>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 infringed."</p>
<p>There is a lot in here open to interpretation, and the courts have been busy interpreting what “arms”, “infringe” etc. really mean:</p>
<p><a href=“Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute”>http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment</a></p>
<p>Very educational reading, IMO. </p>
<p>Now, back to the subject of the thread. </p>
<p>^^ There is a huge difference between what the Constitution says versus what is interpreted. Humans with political objectives, on both sides of aisle, have shown much energy to bastardize what the Framers said. No argument there. This is why I favor the explanation and arguments stipulated in the Federalist Papers, as compared to some 21th Century ideologue, regardless of political affiliation.</p>
<p>I hope the moderators do realize that some off topic is OK if it addresses the bigger picture within which an issue resides. OK, back to the man shooting people in the back.</p>
<p>@Hunt: that scenario happened to a doctor I know post #42. I talked to him weeks after this incident and he said he didn’t realize he chased the criminals off of his property. All he thought about was protecting his family. The public who didn’t know this guy or hear the facts were all against him.</p>
<p>You always have to know all the facts to make a judgment in cases like this. It’s my cynical observation that people don’t like to change their opinion, even if they get more facts.</p>
<p>The problem I have with the thought experiment is the person is just as legally allowed to have a gun as he is allowed to have a bat. He is legally allowed to employ either. </p>
<p>However, to answer the thought experiment, given the fog of war, I would hit until I am satisfied the person could not come back and hurt me. This could mean death for the person. Overall, I would make sure the person is immobile. If I were on the jury, I would give the guy in this thread the benefit of the doubt he felt the same way.</p>
<p>As for the property line thing, we really should be more realistic. In the heat of battle, property lines are not in the calculation when thinking life and death. That is only the purview of Monday morning quarterbacks. That said, a jury can convict for being off his property if it wants, but doubt it will happen.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether or not the victim/shooter broke the law, I think a good defense attorney will be able to convince one person to acquit, and that’s all it takes to get a mistrial. When you read the comments after the numerous articles written about this case, there is A LOT of support for this guy. I doubt the defense attorney is going to get 12 people to vote to acquit, but it all comes down to how many times the DA is going to be willing to try the case. That’s why he may decline to charge the guy. DAs don’t like to take cases to trial that they don’t think they can win, regardless of their personal feelings about the offender’s guilt.</p>
<p>I imagine the DA is trying to get a sense of the pulse of the community where he is. If he gets the sense that not charging will cause vast community outrage, that may determine where he goes from there.</p>
<p>
I see no legal problem with doing so, but I am not sure what good it would do. I am not familiar with any correlation between number of guns owned and frequency of illegal behavior. Leno owns a warehouse full of cars, to the best of my knowledge he hasn’t been linked to any underground street-racing gangs.</p>
<p>^^ The support comes from people do not like or want to be a victim, and fighting back is a natural survival instinct, irrespective of whatever the law says technically. </p>
<p>
I think it is all but impossible to validate this experiment without a clear understanding of the time scale involved - From the moment they started running to the instant of the second, fatal shot, how much time passed? 5 seconds? 20 seconds? A minute?</p>
<p>The thing about the gun is that it is quick - a few shots might only take a few seconds and not involve any gross body movement by the shooter. The baseball analogy ignores that the entire pistol scenario could run its course before the batter even gets to the door. And time adds opportunity for (and expectation of) deliberation and rational thought. I am wary of alternatives that inherently shift the shooter into a clearly deliberate time scale when we do not know that this was in fact the case.</p>
<p>I do understand what @Hunt is asking, and it is a legitimate question.</p>
<p>This time difference can be eliminated by simply stipulating that the bat and gun were lying next to each other, and just as the perpetrator turns her back to flee, the man had the option to pick up the gun or the bat, and he choose the bat. He then hit her once and then followed her off his property line and hit her again until she was not a visible threat. I still come out the same place - I am going for immobility with that bat, which could mean death. I would not convict.</p>