Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Police, schools had no duty to protect Parkland school shooting victims, judge rules


Charlie T Waite

Recommended Posts

This decision follows accepted rulings from previous Supreme Court decisions.  It is "established law" and is another reason that ALL legal citizens should be guaranteed the right to defend themselves by any means necessary!!  SEE: Second Amendment.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

This decision follows accepted rulings from previous Supreme Court decisions.  It is "established law" and is another reason that ALL legal citizens should be guaranteed the right to defend themselves by any means necessary!!  SEE: Second Amendment.

 

But how many people know about those previous rulings?, I know of very few people other than those in a legal profession that keep up on these decisions.

 

Charlie

Link to comment

It was kind of a thing a few years back. Used all the time in discussions with those who say “The police will be there to protect us!”

 

The antis really try to downplay this particular bit of law!!

Link to comment

The police are only minutes away when seconds count.

Link to comment

Out in the country, your on your own. Good Luck!

Link to comment

When you are in uniform on the job, the department frowns on statements you make on issues.

 

I was on-duty at a shoe/leather repair shop, waiting in line to get a holster stitched. This was just after the courts had ruled that Illinois had to implement a concealed carry program. A male in his early 20's decided he was the spokesman for the shoe repair shop waiting room that day.

 

He said, "Hey you're a Trooper (love it when they remind me why I'm dressed like this). "What do you think about people being allowed to carry guns now?"

 

I said, "I'm not very happy about it." And he began to smile.

 

I continued, "I think it is embarrassing that the citizens of Illinois had to go hat in hand to beg for a right they should already have."

 

Smile gone, he sat down. But others in the store nodded in agreement.

 

 

I always told people that I cannot guarantee their safety. I would do my best to get there. Our district consisted of five counties. You could easily be 45 to 60 minutes away from a call for help.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Lawdog Dago Dom said:

When you are in uniform on the job, the department frowns on statements you make on issues.

 

I was on-duty at a shoe/leather repair shop, waiting in line to get a holster stitched. This was just after the courts had ruled that Illinois had to implement a concealed carry program. A male in his early 20's decided he was the spokesman for the shoe repair shop waiting room that day.

 

He said, "Hey you're a Trooper (love it when they remind me why I'm dressed like this). "What do you think about people being allowed to carry guns now?"

 

I said, "I'm not very happy about it." And he began to smile.

 

I continued, "I think it is embarrassing that the citizens of Illinois had to go hat in hand to beg for a right they should already have."

 

Smile gone, he sat down. But others in the store nodded in agreement.

 

 

I always told people that I cannot guarantee their safety. I would do my best to get there. Our district consisted of five counties. You could easily be 45 to 60 minutes away from a call for help.

+1

As I was once one myself (20+ yrs) I can honestly say that most LEOs I know have never had an issue with a law abiding citizen having a firearm.

Link to comment

Likewise with registration.  I don't recall the name of the case, but a federal court of some sort ruled that you can't charge a felon in illegal possession of a firearm with failure to register it because that would be a violation of his right against self incrimination.

I've often wondered if that could be applied to the 4473s.  After all, it is a crime for a felon to attempt to purchase a firearm, but by filling out the 4473 truthfully he would be incriminating himself.

Link to comment

I love Idaho!!!!    :D

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Charlie T Waite said:

+1

As I was once one myself (20+ yrs) I can honestly say that most LEOs I know have never had an issue with a law abiding citizen having a firearm.

 

 

Every cop I've talked with that wasn't a political appointee or Public Affairs Officer has expressed the same thing.  A few have even gone so far as to say they want more people to carry.  Of course, here in Sonoma County, and just about every other coastal county in CA, getting a permit is almost impossible unless you are a Somebody.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.