scot623
Regular Member
It can still be argued he is 18 and his only choice for protection was to carry a long gun..... Strong if you ask me.
Huh?? You can carry a pistol at 18. You just can't purchase one from a FFL until 21.
It can still be argued he is 18 and his only choice for protection was to carry a long gun..... Strong if you ask me.
They are hung on the disturbing charge but they have reached a verdict on brandishing. No verdict haven't published yet. The jury must come back tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.
Police officers are specifically excluded in the brandishing statute. Your car argument makes no sense because the brandishing statute clearly speaks about firearms only.
2. If your 18 years old you can't legally buy a hand gun at the store, can you?
Also, was there an argument made regarding the recent MI supreme court decision on the open carry of arms being protected by both the 2A and art 1 sec 6 of the MI Const.?
It is the same judge that refused to dismiss the case.
Yeah, but we all know he can buy one from a private seller. I sure hope he gets off.
If he gets hit with a brandishing charge based on "ostentacious display" thats going to open up a whole new can of worms for OC.
OC a stainless pistol...brandishing, its ostentacious.
I really hope one of the jurors was born with some common sense, I wish I could have been on this jury panel.
Also, was there an argument made regarding the recent MI supreme court decision on the open carry of arms being protected by both the 2A and art 1 sec 6 of the MI Const.?
If it was ruled the OC was brandishing, then that would basically ban OC in MI. But with the recent MI court ruling that a complete ban on OC of a protected arm is not allowed, the state would then have to allow for some form of OC, wouldn't they?
They are hung on the disturbing charge but they have reached a verdict on brandishing. No verdict have been published yet. The jury must come back tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.
Do we know if they got him on brandishing or not?
I think it is not guilty on the brandishing and they are stuck on the disturbing the peace or what have you because some one on the jury wants him to get in some trouble.
At trial this morning, didn't the LEO state the rifle had to be holstered? :banghead:I cant imagine they would be able to find him guilty of brandishing for simply having it slung over his shoulder