Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law.
Hubbard, a 17-year veteran of the Police Department in Jeffersonville, Ind., says his apprehension stems from a state law approved this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the "unlawful intrusion" by a "public servant" to protect themselves and others, or their property.
"If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he's going to say, 'Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,'¤" said Hubbard, 40, who is president of the Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. "Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law."
Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents and supports prosecutors. The National Rifle Association pushed for the law, saying an unfavorable court decision made the need clear and that it would allow homeowners to defend themselves during a violent, unjustified attack. Police lobbied against it.
"...an unfavorable court decision made the need clear..."
Now we need to cary guns so we can shoot cops in case they try to write us a ticket
"The muslims definitely have a problem with pussy. That is why they are so angry. You marry a woman seeing only the slits of her eyes. Sex involves tossing that Burkha up and approaching from behind. You can't even see her eyes. They finish the deed in five seconds, like a mating chimpanzee. They don't even wipe their asses well, so the view is probably pretty heinous.
That is why those guys are seriously fuked up."...
I don't buy this pussy theory. For me it is usually feast or famine, but during the "famines" I spend more time hunting for something other than guns.
Anywaaaaaaaaaay.
The the braggart brat wrote;
Show us what you have done lately.
Well, despite the freezing morning it turned into a nice day so I went to the range I've been using for 34 years, and lo and behold it is like the old days; nobody there.
Must be hoarding ammo.
Glad I don't have to.
Put a small silhouette out at 220m and put 18 62gr hollow points into the Bushmaster Varminter.
That didn't take long - although I suspect that most people who buy such things use them privately. A gun range that put one up in public would probably soon get a visit from the Secret Service, and be vilified in the news media.
While the old law banned 18 specific types of weapons by name, Feinstein's law would ban 120 specifically-named firearms.
Unlike the old law, Feinstein's proposal would ban semiautomatic weapons and handguns with fixed magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition, effectively making it tougher for gunmen to shoot at large groups of people quickly.
While Feinstein's bill would "grandfather" in semiautomatic weapons made before the ban, people who have those weapons would have to undergo background checks. Currently, private sellers aren't required to check backgrounds of people buying guns.
That's the part I like the best - the background check on people who already have them.
Ever wonder what it would be like (guilty or not) getting shot in the head at close range? Viewer discreation advised - Youtube wants you to be over 21.
That's the part I like the best - the background check on people who already have them.
Hedge, I don't know about every state, but in Ca. if I buy a gun I undergo a background check and there is a two week waiting period. This is required whether I buy it from a dealer or from a private citizen or at a show. In the case of the latter two, I must pay a dealer to act as intermediary, run the background check, and hold the gun for two weeks. Personally, I would not sell a gun of mine to anyone under the table without doing this since if it were later used in a crime I could have a big problem. FWIW I have no problem with any of this regulation. There is no "gun show loophole" in CA., and if some fool sells a gun under the table he is putting himself at serious legal risk.
But in practical terms requiring background checks on people who already own guns is not going to accomplish much. Either their weapon is legally registered - in which case they have already had a check (and if they have been convicted of a crime since, their registered gun should have popped up in the system) or their gun is not registered in which case no one official knows they have it unless they do something bad with it or are dumb enough to get caught with it.
How many people who have unregistered guns do you think will volunteer for a check if they know they won't pass?
I'm not at this point arguing with the regulation, I am saying it will not actually accomplish anything. It also will not affect me 'cause I'm squeaky clean and will pass any test.
...The Apache pilots will be very busy pretty soon...
Still having delusions? Get help, I don't want to read about you in the paper...
Let us know!