Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Gunman kills 3 in NV,armed shopowner regrets not shooting back

  1. #1
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Gunman kills 3 in NV,armed shopowner regrets not shooting back

    Last edited by lil_freak_66; 09-07-2011 at 12:20 PM.
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    I would most likely freeze in sheer terror, but I hope that I could forget myself just a little and take a freaking shot. In just about every case of me personally witnessing a crime, the recognition of what was actually happening took so long that my response was kind of untimely. But I would hope that I would recognize that nothing legitimate was underway with an AK firing in public.

    Talk is cheap, typing even more so, so no judgement, just recognition that things happen fast, and thinking fast is the only solution.

  4. #4
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.
    I have no moral duty to defend anyone other than myself and my immediate family.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    451
    ralph clearly hadnt been mentally prepared to use the firearm he chose to have for protection. its a sad story, I believe that if you are trained and are proficient with your carry weapon, the gun the BG has doesnt matter. we all can learn from this. "i would rather be a mark wilson then a ralph swagler"


    mark wilson was a brave texan who used his 1911 to save a child from being killed in front of a courthouse in texas. He payed the ultimate sacrafice
    while another "ralph swagler" sat idol with a sig sauer and was affraid to engage the the shooter.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sst0185's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Va Beach
    Posts
    120
    These things happen quick. According to the report he killed himself. I think I would have engaged him, I will not criticize those who would not it's a tough call when your carrying a handgun and you find yourself against someone with a rifle.

  7. #7
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Howdy Folks!
    I have no question about what I'd have done.
    I'd have already drawn my weapon when seeing the guy approaching with his AK.
    The moment he pointed it at another citizen, I'd have started shooting!

    No moral responsibility to defend anybody but myself? Not part of my thinking.
    And I'm glad our young folks in our all volunteer military don't think that way either.
    Or to put it as Cain did, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

    If we are unwilling to stick up for the innocent, who should bother doing so for us when we're the target?

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  8. #8
    Regular Member sst0185's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Va Beach
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy Folks!
    I have no question about what I'd have done.
    I'd have already drawn my weapon when seeing the guy approaching with his AK.
    The moment he pointed it at another citizen, I'd have started shooting!

    No moral responsibility to defend anybody but myself? Not part of my thinking.
    And I'm glad our young folks in our all volunteer military don't think that way either.
    Or to put it as Cain did, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

    If we are unwilling to stick up for the innocent, who should bother doing so for us when we're the target?

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    I do not have a cite for this but, when these sub-humans are engaged they usually kill themselves.

    Right on M.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    I was reading Constitutional Law one day and it said:
    If a citizen sees a felony being commited it is his duty
    to stop it if he has the means to.
    If I am armed I could not watch some a$$hole shoot
    innocent people....If you don't have the mindset to
    use a gun don't carry.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Butch00 View Post
    I was reading Constitutional Law one day and it said:
    If a citizen sees a felony being commited it is his duty
    to stop it if he has the means to.
    If I am armed I could not watch some a$$hole shoot
    innocent people....If you don't have the mindset to
    use a gun don't carry.
    In those states without solid Castle Doctrine law, that citizen can be charged with a crime for doing so, where deadly force is employed.


    Do you have a link or reference for that please? I would love to review that one before the next NV legislative session. We almost got strong Castle Doctrine last go-round.


    Now, the reality in NV is that HAD the armed individual acted, and it was subsequently determined that HE was not in danger, he MIGHT leave himself open to criminal charges.

    Here is the relevant legislation passed in 2011: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/7...B/AB321_EN.pdf

    Note that the existing statute provides
    Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human
    being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property
    or person
    Statute does NOT extend it to "defense of others." While it might result in a "no bill," or not even be presented as a charge, our current law does not cover beyond "self, habitation, property or person."

    I may be misreading "person" more restrictive than the author of the law intends, but.







    NOTE: The changes are not effective until 01OCT, 2011.






    Further, had he enganged and neutralized the shooter, Nevada law does NOT provide civil immunity.

    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-0...l#NRS041Sec095
    Last edited by wrightme; 09-07-2011 at 02:56 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.
    Personally, I take no responsibility for the safety of others who are not my close friends and family. I am in no hurry to become any sort of hero type. kthx.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.
    BS wrt the thread topic.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.
    Attitudes like this are emblematic of everything wrong with some posts on this board. It ignores the facts, takes a fallacious stand on a duty to protect others and greatly overgeneralizes the concept of discretionary use of a firearm. In addition it seeks to supplant the right to carry with a subjective judgment.

    As with abortion, the business of carrying is not up for debate, being a personal right. Whether someone shoots or not may not be a matter of will but actually a recognition of level of skill.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    As with abortion, the business of carrying is not up for debate, being a personal right. Whether someone shoots or not may not be a matter of will but actually a recognition of level of skill.
    How do you derail a thread? You call the murdering of infants a "right" in a thread that has nothing to do with murdering children. This sentence could have read, "The business of carrying is not up for debate." But instead a hot button issue that is sure to bring up debate was thrown in, so here we go!


    It is no one's duty to protect me, but if I'm out at lunch and in uniform I'd hope someone would protect me. You see, I always carry a gun, BUT if I am in uniform like these servicemen in the IHOP were I am an easy target. This is because our lawmakers have legislated me out of my right to bear arms. The uniform has everything to do with that because if you see myself or anyone in uniform they are 99% of the time on their way to or from a military base. A place where there is no carrying of firearms. If you do you carry you are to be treated like a terrorist for even thinking of practicing means to defend yourself, family, or friends.
    Last edited by Schlitz; 09-07-2011 at 03:45 PM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Oh, heck! Badger Johnson finally says something that sounds like he agrees with me about the amount of bloodlust displayed by some posters, and you go and focus on a small, insignificant statement of carrying being a right that the courts may some day protect with as much vigor as they do other "rights". This was not a debate about abortion/right-to-life/women's-rights until you tried to make it into one.

    And for all of you posters saying that Ralph Swagler is some sort of wuss or uncaring person or incompetent because he did not get his handgun to hand and rounds downrange fast enough to stop the shooter before he got inside the IHOP - do you have information that the rest of us do not have about where he was when he first assessed the situation, where his handgun was at that very moment, and how far and through/around what he would have had to travel before he could take a shot that would not endanger anyone else? I am amazed at times how much folks either read into a report or assume (not presume, but ass-ume) about what was going on, or what they could have/would have done.

    Am I the only one who seems to understand why our society does not want armed military walking about? Or has anyone else figured out that as much as it denies soldiers (generic term) their 2A rights and puts them at a disadvantage the alternative is considered even worse?

    Sometimes I think that pounding away at the keyboard about these things is just a good way to burn off calories, because I'm just not getting through to anybody. But then, I need the exercise and since the rest of the body is beat up and broke I'll exercise what I can.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    In Nevada, the ACLU does recognize the 2nd amendment as a Right. That is a start.

    I am FOR arming uniformed military members. Or at least for not disarming them. They are citizens first.
    I am not for arming them to conduct law enforcement operations, but see no reason to disarm them. Do you?

    The reports are that Swagler assessed the situation, and did not feel comfortable going pistol - rifle, and stayed in a defensible location. Others would maybe choose different, but as they seem to forget, HE was the one on the scene, and the decision was HIS to make. On that one specific, I agree with you. Too many assume they would/could do better/different, without being there to know.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Oh, heck! Badger Johnson finally says something that sounds like he agrees with me about the amount of bloodlust displayed by some posters, and you go and focus on a small, insignificant statement of carrying being a right that the courts may some day protect with as much vigor as they do other "rights". This was not a debate about abortion/right-to-life/women's-rights until you tried to make it into one.

    And for all of you posters saying that Ralph Swagler is some sort of wuss or uncaring person or incompetent because he did not get his handgun to hand and rounds downrange fast enough to stop the shooter before he got inside the IHOP - do you have information that the rest of us do not have about where he was when he first assessed the situation, where his handgun was at that very moment, and how far and through/around what he would have had to travel before he could take a shot that would not endanger anyone else? I am amazed at times how much folks either read into a report or assume (not presume, but ass-ume) about what was going on, or what they could have/would have done.

    Am I the only one who seems to understand why our society does not want armed military walking about? Or has anyone else figured out that as much as it denies soldiers (generic term) their 2A rights and puts them at a disadvantage the alternative is considered even worse?

    Sometimes I think that pounding away at the keyboard about these things is just a good way to burn off calories, because I'm just not getting through to anybody. But then, I need the exercise and since the rest of the body is beat up and broke I'll exercise what I can.

    stay safe.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Oh, heck! Badger Johnson finally says something that sounds like he agrees with me about the amount of bloodlust displayed by some posters, and you go and focus on a small, insignificant statement of carrying being a right that the courts may some day protect with as much vigor as they do other "rights". This was not a debate about abortion/right-to-life/women's-rights until you tried to make it into one.

    And for all of you posters saying that Ralph Swagler is some sort of wuss or uncaring person or incompetent because he did not get his handgun to hand and rounds downrange fast enough to stop the shooter before he got inside the IHOP - do you have information that the rest of us do not have about where he was when he first assessed the situation, where his handgun was at that very moment, and how far and through/around what he would have had to travel before he could take a shot that would not endanger anyone else? I am amazed at times how much folks either read into a report or assume (not presume, but ass-ume) about what was going on, or what they could have/would have done.

    Am I the only one who seems to understand why our society does not want armed military walking about? Or has anyone else figured out that as much as it denies soldiers (generic term) their 2A rights and puts them at a disadvantage the alternative is considered even worse?

    Sometimes I think that pounding away at the keyboard about these things is just a good way to burn off calories, because I'm just not getting through to anybody. But then, I need the exercise and since the rest of the body is beat up and broke I'll exercise what I can.

    stay safe.
    You are clearly trolling. I didn't bring up abortion, your boy badger Johnson did.

    I never called ANYONE uncaring. I actually didn't say ANYTHING about Ralph Swagler. That whole paragraph was laughable, maybe it wasn't directed at me. But if it was you might want to re-read my post.

    Am I the only one who seems to understand why our society does not want armed military walking about?
    I don't understand. Please explain.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    I don't understand. Please explain.
    I think he forgets that our military service members are also citizens, and should not need to submit to being disarmed.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post

    I am FOR arming uniformed military members. Or at least for not disarming them. They are citizens first.
    I am not for arming them to conduct law enforcement operations, but see no reason to disarm them. Do you?
    This is what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting armed airmen patrol the streets. I'm suggesting that as an American working mid shift in the military, if I want to go to IHOP after work with some friends I should be able to carry for defense. Me carrying a glock 23 in my waistband at IHOP is not the same as a flight of airman in riot gear posted on humvees at the street corner downtown. I feel you think these are the same thing.

    I'm an American before an Airman, and I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. Yet you are against me practicing the rights protected by the constitution I took an oath to support? trololololol
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    We can all sit here and armchair quarterback till the cows come home, but it won't change anything. The truth is we DON'T KNOW how we will react until we are faced with a similar situation. It takes a few seconds at least to recognize what is going on, a bit longer to recognize a dangerous situation, simply because most of us aren't facing these types of situations on a daily basis. It simply takes longer to react to something that is out of the ordinary.

    Then, many calculations are made mentally as to whether or not we should shoot, can we get our weapon into play in time, etc. Like it or not, most of us are going to do what we can to save ourselves first and others next, if there is time. I also agree that a pistol is no match for a rifle. My firearms instructor told me that if I was ever in a situation where someone was shooting at me with a rifle, to get the hell out of there if I could.

    However, I feel I have a moral responsibility to help another person if I can. I would do for them what I would want someone to do for me in the same situation, if at all possible. A lot of people have died or been severely injured because no one wanted to "become involved." Criminals count on the fact that in all liklihood, no one is going to come to the aid of their victim. There are some laws that need to be changed so that if a person comes to the aid of another in good faith, that person should not be prosecuted.

    I don't think Swagler did anything wrong or to be ashamed of. Hindsight is always 100%. You can always see afterward what you could have done differently. In the heat of the moment, you do what comes to mind, and that can involve a lot of things. I'm sure this will stay with him the rest of his life. I cannot judge the man because I don't know what I would have done in that situation, I only know what I THINK I would have done.

    BTW, Skidmard is not a troll and never has been a troll. He is a respected person on this board and for good reason.

    To the person who said they would have shot the perp as he came through the door-Really? At that time he hadn't committed a crime yet and you would have been guilty of murder.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South end of the state, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    314
    The news I saw said the perp started shooting in the parking lot. They showed where many rounds came into the store of the man who didn't engage a shootout with the perp. ( this happened after he came out of the Ihop) They had video of the store owners son trying to lock the door and just as he stepped back a round came through very close to him.

    They also showed the Ihop location from the BBQ store . It was on the other side of the parking lot. Hard to tell distance but looked to be 25 yards or more.

    I don't know what I would have done. I would like to think that I would have taken a shot but till you are physically involved in such a situation , it's hard to tell.
    Last edited by jayspapa; 09-08-2011 at 12:41 AM.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    In those states without solid Castle Doctrine law, that citizen can be charged with a crime for doing so, where deadly force is employed.


    Do you have a link or reference for that please? I would love to review that one before the next NV legislative session. We almost got strong Castle Doctrine last go-round.


    Now, the reality in NV is that HAD the armed individual acted, and it was subsequently determined that HE was not in danger, he MIGHT leave himself open to criminal charges.

    Here is the relevant legislation passed in 2011: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/7...B/AB321_EN.pdf

    Note that the existing statute provides
    Statute does NOT extend it to "defense of others." While it might result in a "no bill," or not even be presented as a charge, our current law does not cover beyond "self, habitation, property or person."

    I may be misreading "person" more restrictive than the author of the law intends, but.

    NOTE: The changes are not effective until 01OCT, 2011.
    I come away from that statute with a different meaning.

    I'm betting defense of others is included.

    It makes no sense for the legislature to start with self-defense, and then mean self-defense again in the next clause but actually use the word person. I think the correct construction is to take the word person as meaning any person, just like it would mean any habitation, any property. I think the word person is being used in the general sense in a set that includes two other items meant in a general sense.

    From another angle, if person means only self-defense, then a parent cannot use lethal force to protect a child, nor a husband to protect a wife, etc.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I come away from that statute with a different meaning.

    I'm betting defense of others is included.

    It makes no sense for the legislature to start with self-defense, and then mean self-defense again in the next clause but actually use the word person. I think the correct construction is to take the word person as meaning any person, just like it would mean any habitation, any property. I think the word person is being used in the general sense in a set that includes two other items meant in a general sense.

    From another angle, if person means only self-defense, then a parent cannot use lethal force to protect a child, nor a husband to protect a wife, etc.
    Statute does not agree with you....
    Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human
    being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property
    or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by
    violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or
    persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous,
    tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of
    another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to
    any person dwelling or being therein
    .
    The legislature did NOT extend that to include the general public, no matter how WE view it or would desire it to be worded. A parent CAN use lethal force to protect a child, husband, wife, or another "dwelling or being therein." They did choose to include "Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force
    is used," but they did NOT extend the persons who can be defended, and left the existing definition in place. It is difficult to place any legislative intent to protect others outside of those defined, when there IS a group defined.

    AB-381 WOULD have expanded the definitions, and added civil immunity. This also indicates that existing statute does not cover "defense of others" directly.

    In fact, in the legislative digest section of AB-381, we find the following:

    "Existing law provides that in a civil action brought by or on behalf of a person
    24 against whom force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury was
    25 used: (1) there is a presumption that the person who used such force had a
    26 reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to himself or herself or another
    27 person if the person against whom such force was used was committing burglary or
    28 invasion of the home"


    Existing civil immunity covers "burglary or invasion of the home," within the definitions already in statute. This does not support a view that civil immunity would cover defense of others in public, other than those fitting the existing statutory definitions. TWO bills were presented. We got a third, weaker version.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.
    Bovine Feces!!! That's that Sheepdog propaganda talking. I carry to protect me and mine. I decide if I want to do more than that. It's like say that if I'm not willing to pick up hitchhikers then I have no business driving a car. You want to play superhero, go ahead. My pistol is to shoot my way out of a bad situation or toward a bigger gun. I'm not going run across a parking lot to engage a shooter who is armed with a 7.62 military style rifle with my EDC 9mm pistol. Hell, the deputies who respond are going to be pulling ARs and shotguns from thier cruisers. Why would I, Joe Citizen, run in with no personal body armor and a marginal offensive weapon (my Ruger P-89 9mm)? The armchair commandos can sit tehre and talk about being heros with their glocks on their hips but I seriously doubt that when faced with an active shooter armed with an Ak anyone is going running into the free fire zone.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Ralph Swagler is not at any fault here. I'm sure plenty of people in that iHOP were capable of using a firearm and just didn't carry because "they don't like guns." I mean, ultimately this is the gunman's FAULT, but if you think you can just go out of the house anymore and live in a perfect world then you've got another thing coming. people are crazy, they always have been.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •