imported post
RE: the "with a view to prevent crime" concept (as seen in the Texas constituion and others):
As I have said before, until some GOOD laws are passed to dispense with all the contradictory/confusing, crazy-quilt and mostly BAD gun laws out there, all we need NOW is
one more (yes, another gun-law, # 20,001 if you will,but a "temporary" law) -- and one that applies NATION-WIDE preferably, no matter what stateyou are inas long as you're in America...so no politician, police chief, DA, street cop/deputy or judge (or even the AG or President) could get around it, as it would be an official affirmation of an inalienableRIGHT: The right of Self-Defense.
That is, even if it is illegal (as it often is NOW due to some federal/state/county/city/town/village law or ordinance) to carry a CW in insidesome building, ina convenience store/restuarant (selling/serving alcohol),in or near schools, or on public transportation, etc.) -- whether WITH or WITHOUT a CW permit -- if acriminal attackagainst the "illegal carrier" (and/or against others said "illegal carrier" comes to the aid of) is prevented or stopped in-progress, then NO CHARGES couldbe filed againstsaidperson who otherwise WOULD have been charged with carrying a gun illegally. In short it makes the "he/she was carrying illegally" moot as that does not apply...because a crime wasPREVENTED from taking place (mugging/robbery/car-jacking/rape) or stopped one from being worse that it was (mall/school/place-of-business/place-of-employment mass-shooting spree).
After all, why should a person who suffers a criminal attack ALSO suffer from "the authorities" afterwards? [Yes, I know common sense does not apply to "justice" in this country...but I'mjust saying anyway]
So, ifone carries a legal CW (has a valid CW permit) into a place that is not legally allowed, or, if one iscarrying illegally to begin with (does not have a CW permit at all), then uses the gun to prevent or stop a crime -- i.e., the person is "OUTED" becausehe/she prevented or stopped a crime/saved his/her or other peoples LIVES -- thenthat person couldnot be charged with carrying illegally.
The RESULT -- preventing severe bodily harm and/or saving lives -- trumps the breaking of a lesser issue law (and a BAD/ILLEGAL law at that). I mean if "a view to prevent crime" is so important aCONCEPT, enough so to bewritten into the TX consititution (and those of other states), then shouldn't preventing crime IN REALITYtrump all else, especially when it comes to saving lives? [a rhetorical question]
IMO, since most of us -- legally carrying (those who have CW permits) or illegally carrying (those without CW permits) -- are more concerned/worried about "the law" and "the authorites" (which should NOT be the case) FAR more than were are concerned about dealing with criminals (actually, we couldn't care less nor are we worried about dealing with that trash -- after all, we're not worried about a CRIMINAL discovering we are armed, are we?), this would relieve that concern (a bit) and stop the INSANITY of some person -- carrying a handgun "illegally" for whatever reason -- doing the right thing crime-wise by scaring-off/killing some street-punk/gangster/car-jacker but then being charged afterwards for doingthe right thingbecause of the trivial technicality of having a CW "illegally."
Sure -- and as per the current (though also currently erroneous, conflicting, contradictory and confusing) legal environment -- on all other occasions if a CW permit holder knowingly decides to go to places on the illegal list and gets caught carrying there, he/she would be charged with that offense. Likewise, a person who carries WITHOUT a permit takes a chance going out ANYWHERE that he'she might be somehow dicovered to be carrying, and if caught, would be charged with carrying w/o a permit. But if a criminal attack happens, then this would change things.
Of course, this won't happen, but I'm just saying that only ONE law making the "victim" of a crime immune from being prosecuted (or even charged) with carrying illegally -- IF a serious crime (make it a felony for legal languane purposes/definitions) was prevented or stopped in progress -- then said victim would not have to worry about any illegal carrying charges NOR would he/she have the gun confiscated.
As I also have said, decent citizens should NOThave to worry MORE about the cops than they do criminals -- but they SURE DO as things standnow -- so this is one way around that.
Let's at least consider doing this "for the children." [Had to throw that in]
-- John D.
"I don't believe it would be appropriate to charge you," Nieskes wrote. "I will presume that you understand that despite the announcement by the Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin regarding open carry, that you and all other individuals, a notable exception being on-duty police officers, are barred from possessing a firearm in certain circumstances and place."