-
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.
Federal Building Case
- Thread starter XD45PlusP
- Start date
deanf
Regular Member
imported post
For our purposes, it all comes down to the "other lawful purposes" exception. Self-defense is lawful, so it should follow that carrying for self-defense is a lawful purpose. I wonder why the appellant didn't argue that in the Murray case.
For our purposes, it all comes down to the "other lawful purposes" exception. Self-defense is lawful, so it should follow that carrying for self-defense is a lawful purpose. I wonder why the appellant didn't argue that in the Murray case.
lockman
State Researcher
imported post
deanf wrote:
deanf wrote:
Agreed!
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
XD45PlusP wrote:
XD45PlusP wrote:
This appealant argued that the lobby was a "neutral zone" and he didn't "knowingly" carry the pistol into the facility... it was a really weak argument. I want to see him argue the lawful purposes part of the statute.
heresolong
Regular Member
imported post
Actually the court even said in their opinion that he had a valid argument in assuming that the lobby was not a prohibited area. Where he went wrong was staying to argue and get belligerent. I think that the court made the wrong decision and I could see this being overturned by the SCOTUS. He should have been found guilty of the first charge regarding the confrontation and not guilty of the second IMHO.
I would like to see the argument that legally carrying for lawful purposes is allowed, however, as another case.
Actually the court even said in their opinion that he had a valid argument in assuming that the lobby was not a prohibited area. Where he went wrong was staying to argue and get belligerent. I think that the court made the wrong decision and I could see this being overturned by the SCOTUS. He should have been found guilty of the first charge regarding the confrontation and not guilty of the second IMHO.
I would like to see the argument that legally carrying for lawful purposes is allowed, however, as another case.