• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Judge Says Citizens Need To Buy Guns To Protect Themselves

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

Judge Says Citizens Need To Buy Guns To Protect Themselves
January 28, 2009

General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon on Wednesday told a female home invasion victim she needs to buy a gun to protect herself.

"There should be a law that law abiding citizens with no felony convictions should own a gun," the judge said while setting bond for Colton Dobbins.

Judge Moon told Danielle Walker, "I know many fine police officers. But we can't depend on the police to protect us any more."

He said Chattanooga is the 57th most dangerous city in the country, and to many criminals "the value of human life means nothing to them."

The judge said, "With 7,000 foreclosures every day and 6,000 kids dropping out of school" that the crime situation is going to get much worse.


He told the 18-year-old Dobbins he is "lucky to be alive" after barging into the home of Ms. Walker.

Judge Moon said, "If it had been my house you came in on, you would have wound up at Coulter Funeral Home."

Dobbins was charged with forcing his way into Ms. Walker's home where she and her nine-year-old son live. Ms. Walker said Dobbins knocked her to the floor, then two other men entered her home.

Ms. Walker said, "I was afraid for my son."


http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_143550.asp

-- John D.
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

Give this judge a big hand....we do need a law that requires the citizens to own a firearm and learn how to use it properly.
 

GWbiker

Guest
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
958
Location
USA
imported post

I wish that Judge never loses his elected position. This country needs more of his kind!
 

marine77

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
167
Location
, ,
imported post

suntzu wrote:
Give this judge a big hand....we do need a law that requires the citizens to own a firearm and learn how to use it properly.
+1
 

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

suntzu wrote:
Give this judge a big hand....we do need a law that requires the citizens to own a firearm and learn how to use it properly.
No we don't, it is totally unneccesary. That would change a right and turn it into arequirement. I don't support that idea. Less government intervention the better and wouldclearly bea violation of the tenth amendment.

While I respect the advice from the judge to the victim and the opinion of the need for a law, it is not his place to campaign for laws, nor is it a law we need in the first place. She is perfectly capable of going out and buying her own gun,learning to use it, carry it, and potentiallyuse it in self-defense without such a law.
 

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

Flintlock wrote:
suntzu wrote:
Give this judge a big hand....we do need a law that requires the citizens to own a firearm and learn how to use it properly.
No we don't, it is totally unneccesary. That would change a right and turn it into arequirement. I don't support that idea. Less government intervention the better and wouldclearly bea violation of the tenth amendment.

While I respect the advice from the judge to the victim and the opinion of the need for a law, it is not his place to campaign for laws, nor is it a law we need in the first place. She is perfectly capable of going out and buying her own gun,learning to use it, carry it, and potentiallyuse it in self-defense without such a law.
Unless she belongs to the Brady bunch or some such group. In which case, she would probably rather die than buysomething so "evil" as a gun. Face it, such a law is the only way to once and for all knock those idiots out the park.
 

Mississippian

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
266
Location
Southern, Mississippi, USA
imported post

we do need a law that requires the citizens to own a firearm and learn how to use it properly.
It would be nice for every citizen to own a firearm, butI would be against any such law.

Maybe free orrelativelycheapgov. sponsored handgun training and then a Gov. sponsored firearm purchase discount?...Yea right, I know!
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

The Right would still exist. A 'requirement' would apply universally based upon some needs of the state. As in the old cry: "To Arms!" It was understood that the populace was already armed... they just requirethose capableto show up. (as in the War of 1812)
 

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:
The Right would still exist. A 'requirement' would apply universally based upon some needs of the state. As in the old cry: "To Arms!" It was understood that the populace was already armed... they just requirethose capableto show up. (as in the War of 1812)
Requiring the exercising of a right nullifies it as such. It would be no different if we were forced to vote or forced to assemble against our will. It is a violation of the tenth amendment for the government to pass any such law. And back to the OP,I think it is dangerous for those that interpret and apply our laws to be campaigning for issues that are solelylegislative matters.
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

Flintlock wrote:
Sonora Rebel wrote:
The Right would still exist. A 'requirement' would apply universally based upon some needs of the state. As in the old cry: "To Arms!" It was understood that the populace was already armed... they just requirethose capableto show up. (as in the War of 1812)
Requiring the exercising of a right nullifies it as such. It would be no different if we were forced to vote or forced to assemble against our will. It is a violation of the tenth amendment for the government to pass any such law. And back to the OP,I think it is dangerous for those that interpret and apply our laws to be campaigning for issues that are solelylegislative matters.
The police do it every day against the citizens by making up laws as they go along.....

I think we should give this judge a BIG thumbs up for having the guts to actually say something like this, because the police can't protect you and they have no legal obligation to do so. See
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Dec. 21, 1981).
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:
The Right would still exist. A 'requirement' would apply universally based upon some needs of the state. As in the old cry: "To Arms!" It was understood that the populace was already armed... they just requirethose capableto show up. (as in the War of 1812)
The "requirement" would not even be based upon some perceived need of a state--but upon the needs of the citizenry to be armed and trained to defend themselves against violent attack--and by "trained" I am talking CQB such as would occur in homes, room clearing procedures as would occur if you walked in on a break-in, as well as tactics such as firing on the move, firing from cover and shoot/no shoot situations as well as stress management....both with a handgun, as well as with a shotgun/long gun, and then begin running the scenarios in a "mockup" of a home and do so with live ammunition and card board targets, in daylight and low light conditions where a flash light would also be a requirement.

the only downside to something like this would be the time required to become even half way proficient and the need for continued training in order to keep firing skills and decision making ability sharp, as well as the money which would be invested in obtaining the training.


a well armed/well trained population is a safer population.
 

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

suntzu wrote:
The police do it every day against the citizens by making up laws as they go along.....

I think we should give this judge a BIG thumbs up for having the guts to actually say something like this, because the police can't protect you and they have no legal obligation to do so. See
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Dec. 21, 1981).
And your point is what?

Are you condoning this activity? Police are essentially agents of government and it is not OK for them to make up the law as they go.

A judge commenting on the need for laws is a personal opinion and shouldn't hold anymore weight than any of our opinions. The Judicial Branch of government should shy away from legislative matters, IMO.
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

Flintlock wrote:
suntzu wrote:
The police do it every day against the citizens by making up laws as they go along.....

I think we should give this judge a BIG thumbs up for having the guts to actually say something like this, because the police can't protect you and they have no legal obligation to do so. See
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Dec. 21, 1981).
And your point is what?

The point is that the police legislate from behind a badge every day, when they try to find a reason to arrest you, or go around looking for reasons to stop you, and the saddest thing is--the majority of people would simply stand by and accept the misconduct and never make an attempt to hold the offending officers accountable. However, when a judge dares to sit behind a bench and encourage us to exercise our rights by telling us what we already know--we get indignant about it. Should he have done it--no, but he only told us what we already know--that the police cannot protect us and that they have NO duty to do so...

Are you condoning this activity? Police are essentially agents of government and it is not OK for them to make up the law as they go.

I think you misread my post: I meant that NO it is not ok for the police to legislate to us and make up laws as they go along, but they do and it is a sad fact of life in this country; and their unlawful and improper conduct will continue until the people grow some backbone and put a stop to it through litigation, through complaints, through initiating investigations into their conduct, through criminal complaints when LEOs blatantly assault the citizens, or use violence against them and through advocating for and pushing for stricter controls on the actions of law enforcement and for an independent review of complaints against them. The people have to take the necessary steps to tell the government NO, this conduct is not proper and we, through whom you receive your authortity are not going to tolerate it, and we expect you to bring your agents under tighter controls...For the record, I am a VERY vociferous advocate for placing tighter and more restrictive controls upon the conduct and the authority of the police and for holding them criminally and financially accountable for their misconduct.


A judge commenting on the need for laws is a personal opinion and shouldn't hold anymore weight than any of our opinions. The Judicial Branch of government should shy away from legislative matters, IMO.


The problem is--judges like to use their positions to advocate their personal positions.

so on that I agree with you. The Judicial branch can just as easily strip us of our rights as a state or federal legislature can.

 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Flintlock wrote:
A judge commenting on the need for laws is a personal opinion and shouldn't hold anymore weight than any of our opinions. The Judicial Branch of government should shy away from legislative matters, IMO.
I agree. How many times have some of us said, "There aught to be a law against being that good looking." Or, "There aught to be a law making everybodyhave to work for a living."
 

diesel556

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
714
Location
Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
Flintlock wrote:
A judge commenting on the need for laws is a personal opinion and shouldn't hold anymore weight than any of our opinions. The Judicial Branch of government should shy away from legislative matters, IMO.
I agree. How many times have some of us said, "There aught to be a law against being that good looking." Or, "There aught to be a law making everybodyhave to work for a living."
I don't disagree. However, he is perfectly within is authority to state his opinion. Judge's do it all the time (read my first post). I just happen to like that this judge's opinion is pro gun.

Again, thumbs up al juez (judge)!!!
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
Flintlock wrote:
A judge commenting on the need for laws is a personal opinion and shouldn't hold anymore weight than any of our opinions. The Judicial Branch of government should shy away from legislative matters, IMO.
I agree. How many times have some of us said, "There aught to be a law against being that good looking." Or, "There aught to be a law making everybodyhave to work for a living."
Personally I have always said that "there aught to be a law that makes it a felony to be a politician or a lobbyist" :D
 
Top