scot623
Regular Member
Huh?? You can carry a pistol at 18. You just can't purchase one from a FFL until 21.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Combs trial starts today. News and updates.
- Thread starter ken243
- Start date
Huh?? You can carry a pistol at 18. You just can't purchase one from a FFL until 21.
TheQ
Regular Member
They are hung on the disturbing charge but they have reached a verdict on brandishing. No verdict have been published yet. The jury must come back tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.
Last edited:
crazydude6030
Regular Member
Do we know if they got him on brandishing or not?
DocWalker
Regular Member
I know I'm just really frustrated that the gastapo have let it go this far.
1. He wasn't waving it around he was carring it in the safest manner he could while having it for self defense.
2. If your 18 years old you can't legally buy a hand gun at the store, can you?
3. I would have asked the officer....Can you 100% guarentee everyones safety in this town 100% of the time?
Have this town never had a mugging, murder, rape, or any other crime?
If the defendant can't buy a hand gun then it stands he only has a rifle for defense and you stated you can't guarentee his or anyone elses safety 100% of the time.
He was carring it the safest and in the least aggressive manner possiable while still having it ready to protect himself....right If not please demonstrate how you would carry a rifle for the jury.
What a bunch of crap.
scot623
Regular Member
Yeah, but we all know he can buy one from a private seller. I sure hope he gets off.
Last edited:
Yance
Regular Member
If he gets hit with a brandishing charge based on "ostentacious display" thats going to open up a whole new can of worms for OC.
OC a stainless pistol...brandishing, its ostentacious.
I really hope one of the jurors was born with some common sense, I wish I could have been on this jury panel.
OC a stainless pistol...brandishing, its ostentacious.
I really hope one of the jurors was born with some common sense, I wish I could have been on this jury panel.
Yance
Regular Member
Also, was there an argument made regarding the recent MI supreme court decision on the open carry of arms being protected by both the 2A and art 1 sec 6 of the MI Const.?
detroit_fan
Regular Member
good question
eta- i'm also happy to hear that a plan to appeal if convicted is in place. that can not be allowed to stand.
Last edited:
dougwg
Regular Member
Probably because he wanted to see/hear the briefs.
DocWalker
Regular Member
I would say the goverment "can't" make you buy anything but as we know that they can now and if you don't they will just call it a tax.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
If it was ruled the OC was brandishing, then that would basically ban OC in MI. But with the recent MI court ruling that a complete ban on OC of a protected arm is not allowed, the state would then have to allow for some form of OC, wouldn't they?
smellslikemichigan
Campaign Veteran
i surely hope so
Yance
Regular Member
Given the fact the the open carry of arms was ruled as being protected, I cant imagine they would be able to find him guilty of brandishing for simply having it slung over his shoulder, I guess at the very least its an argument that will probably hold up in appeals court.
griffin
Regular Member
Since AG Opinion No. 7101 states, “A person when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm….” I would hope the jury would use that guidance and apply the "waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner" to this case as Sean Combs was neither waving or displaying his rifle in a threatening manner. His hands weren't even on it if it was slung on his back over his shoulder. Not waving it around in a threatening manner.
stainless1911
Banned
I think that he was found guilty on brandishing, and they want to see if it rises to the level of disturbing the peace.
Judging by the way the .gov has been towards gun owners, esp OCers, and the countless negative comments on boards everywhere on stories like this, I'd say that OC has a price on its head. I believe that we are the last generation of Americans that will be openly carrying.
Last edited:
News article with quotes...
http://troy.patch.com/articles/sean-combs-jury-deliberating
http://troy.patch.com/articles/sean-combs-jury-deliberating
Yance
Regular Member
Thats what I'm afraid of, this is part of the reason why jurys can be worthless, if you get someone on there that has a vendetta out for the defendent because they think the defendent should "pay" because of what they did, even a legal activity, you might find yourself screwed. Theres a lot of comments on articles regarding this case where people are saying even though it wasnt illegal it was "stupid" so he should still be found guilty.
I hope the brandishing is a not guilty verdict and you'd have to argue that the peace wasnt really disturbed until the police approached him.
griffin
Regular Member
At trial this morning, didn't the LEO state the rifle had to be holstered? :banghead:
stainless1911
Banned
OOH I want one, does anyone know if they make a Blackhawk SERPA for an M1A?