I saw it last night, not really following it, but have taken it under advisement and I will check it pretty much daily.
I do not know the parties involved or have even a semi-accurate idea of what happened. While I do tend to be curious, since this person has gotten themselves into an issue with the law however proper or improper it might be, the less it is talked about, the better their odds of a positive outcome.
There is a rumor I talk a lot so I tend to shy away from participation in such threads simply because I honestly believe the parties involved should not be discussing it at all.
I guess all I am saying is....we are all in it together, or we fight our own fight. I for one will do my best to be there for each of you that wish to fight for our RIGHT...whether it be here or across the country.
Z
LOL
You said following it, not contributing to it.
I have not done so yet, I might do so in the future.
I am still trying to figure out why they have not set up a fund for it instead of direct mail to the firm. I do not like that part, it is unusual, not saying it ain't legit, just not the normal path one takes.
Statistically, less than 5% will donate a dime. Lots of folks talk about it, but very few actually do it.
I do not trust anyone that would volunteer to administer a fund that is not strictly controlled by principles and statute. A lawyer is controlled by his canons of ethics.I am still trying to figure out why they have not set up a fund for it instead of direct mail to the firm. I do not like that part, it is unusual, not saying it ain't legit, just not the normal path one takes.
I do not trust anyone that would volunteer to administer a fund that is not strictly controlled by principles and statute. A lawyer is controlled by his canons of ethics.
Money is at the root of all infringements of the Second Amendment and especially in Wisconsin.
As is evident from a few other post, I can be a bit abrasive, especially when frustrated, if such came through in these postings, disregard it as there was no intent.
I really do care a lot about such issues being handled correctly and an irrevocable charitable trust may well not be the best way to handle the situation, but something that protects the person charged from a tax burden in the end is quite important. While we may not like how gun owners are often treated by the government, it pales in comparison to how the IRS can treat anyone.
If it is suspected the whole total will be 5k or under, it very well might be an issue, but seeing them get a 4k tax bill in April next year because they were not protected from it properly IMHO is a waste of money.
"Decided not to cite a woman"??? How COULD they cite her? If she had broken the law BEFORE they pulled her over, they might have a case. Just because she WAS breaking the law by carrying a concealed loaded weapon does not mean they can cite her if they found this out by making an ILLEGAL stop as she had not committed a crime by carrying to church.