Because you let them arrest Scummy McScumbag for the “crime of carrying a gun” and before you know it, carry a gun is a crime. For everyone. Even if you have a permit
Now the courts are saying that anytime you carry a firearm you are committing a crime. If you have a concealed carry license, that just gives you an “affirmative defense” to the charges.
It’s a crime to carry a gun, which they can arrest you for, which you then can present your permit as a defense. Later. After all of it has transpired.
Is that reasonable to you?
Advertisement
Comments
Joe Allen says:
on 9/18/2012 at 2:46 PM
It's bogus logic, but often it may be a result of getting CCW laws where they didn't exist before. That's basically the way it's phrased in MO, where all the existing laws against CCW stayed on the books - they just added exemption for permit holders, and statewide pre-emption so that the law is the same across the state.
This is ridiculous.
The state does not have power over a law abiding individual. So they make laws that can be interpreted (twisted) to make illegal the very thing that the purport to legalize. Then tell us that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It makes no sense that the state would issue a license for something with the intention of that thing being a crime, and any judge who thinks it does really needs to step down from the bench and walk away.
And maybe get a job at McDonalds so their worst screw-up would be taking an order for a big mac but not filling it because they think the customer doesn't really want it.
s
The state does not have power over a law abiding individual. So they make laws that can be interpreted (twisted) to make illegal the very thing that the purport to legalize. Then tell us that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It makes no sense that the state would issue a license for something with the intention of that thing being a crime, and any judge who thinks it does really needs to step down from the bench and walk away.
And maybe get a job at McDonalds so their worst screw-up would be taking an order for a big mac but not filling it because they think the customer doesn't really want it.
s
Barron Barnett
says:
A comparison exercise:
Can I be arrested and jailed for driving without a license. With the only use for my drivers license is to be used in my defense of the "crime"?
Sorry, but I call BS. The act of doing something when permitted to do so cannot by definition be a crime.
Can I be arrested and jailed for driving without a license. With the only use for my drivers license is to be used in my defense of the "crime"?
Sorry, but I call BS. The act of doing something when permitted to do so cannot by definition be a crime.
Sean Caranna
says:
"Driving without a license" is a crime.
Currently, "Carrying a gun" is a crime in FL.
There is an exception for people with a license but that exception is not part of the crime of carrying a gun.
It should be .
The difference may look subtle but the implications are huge if the court gets this case wrong.
Currently, "Carrying a gun" is a crime in FL.
There is an exception for people with a license but that exception is not part of the crime of carrying a gun.
It should be .
The difference may look subtle but the implications are huge if the court gets this case wrong.
Haven't looked at the opinion yet, but Joe Allen is right about this being how many laws are written. Tennessee law is written the same way. Still, most cops have the gumption to NOT arrest someone who has a permit because they KNOW that the defense applies.
This is less a defect in the writing of the law and more a problem with the cop and DA. When you look into it, many laws are drafted this way--e.g. self defense. Typically, there is a law declaring murder illegal and defining murder as the unlawful killing of a human being. Then you have another statute codifying the common law saying that self defense is an affirmative defense, allowing you to say, in effect, "Yes, I killed him, but it was lawful because I was in fear of my life."
In obvious cases of self defense, the police and DA should let the case go rather than having a trial, and in most cases this is what they do.
In the case of a Permit holder, the presentation of that should likewise make the case so obvious that nobody pursues it.
Of course, this skips the issue of whether carrying a gun should be a crime--it should not, but until the day we win on that front, we're stuck with permits.
Two solutions (until we can get constitutional carry) would be either rewriting the law to make unlicensed carry a crime (not sure if I like that as it simply re-codifies the idea that the government is ALLOWING you to exercise a right) or drafting a law to allow suing and even prosecuting police officers and DA's for malicious prosecution in these and other similarly inane cases.
This is less a defect in the writing of the law and more a problem with the cop and DA. When you look into it, many laws are drafted this way--e.g. self defense. Typically, there is a law declaring murder illegal and defining murder as the unlawful killing of a human being. Then you have another statute codifying the common law saying that self defense is an affirmative defense, allowing you to say, in effect, "Yes, I killed him, but it was lawful because I was in fear of my life."
In obvious cases of self defense, the police and DA should let the case go rather than having a trial, and in most cases this is what they do.
In the case of a Permit holder, the presentation of that should likewise make the case so obvious that nobody pursues it.
Of course, this skips the issue of whether carrying a gun should be a crime--it should not, but until the day we win on that front, we're stuck with permits.
Two solutions (until we can get constitutional carry) would be either rewriting the law to make unlicensed carry a crime (not sure if I like that as it simply re-codifies the idea that the government is ALLOWING you to exercise a right) or drafting a law to allow suing and even prosecuting police officers and DA's for malicious prosecution in these and other similarly inane cases.
"...drafting a law to allow suing and even prosecuting police officers and DA's for malicious prosecution in these and other similarly inane cases."
Something along the line of a "If you abuse it, you lose it" law, similar to the preemption law enacted here in Florida. The deciders and their enforcers won't care unless it's their freedom and their money on the line if they screw up. Those who abuse their position, be they law makers or law enforcers should lose the privilege of "qualified immunity". It's a privilege, not a right. (Sound familiar?) Those who worked with the aforementioned abusers and said nothing should lose theirs as well. Something like this may, in my opinion, help put the brakes on the growing police state in which we find ourselves living and maybe help prevent some of the open conflict that some folks are seeing as an inevitability.
As a gun owner, I hold the power to end or irrevocably change people's lives. Our system of laws provides that if I abuse that power, my life will be subject to being ended or irrevocably changed in turn. Why should prosecutors and police be held to a looser standard than me when there are countless documented cases of abuse after abuse after abuse?
If they don't like it, they're free to seek employment elsewhere. We as their nominal employers will have little trouble finding someone who will do the job properly and in good faith. Of course, I might as well start looking for the yellow brick road to the emerald city as both worlds have about the same likelihood of becoming a reality.
Something along the line of a "If you abuse it, you lose it" law, similar to the preemption law enacted here in Florida. The deciders and their enforcers won't care unless it's their freedom and their money on the line if they screw up. Those who abuse their position, be they law makers or law enforcers should lose the privilege of "qualified immunity". It's a privilege, not a right. (Sound familiar?) Those who worked with the aforementioned abusers and said nothing should lose theirs as well. Something like this may, in my opinion, help put the brakes on the growing police state in which we find ourselves living and maybe help prevent some of the open conflict that some folks are seeing as an inevitability.
As a gun owner, I hold the power to end or irrevocably change people's lives. Our system of laws provides that if I abuse that power, my life will be subject to being ended or irrevocably changed in turn. Why should prosecutors and police be held to a looser standard than me when there are countless documented cases of abuse after abuse after abuse?
If they don't like it, they're free to seek employment elsewhere. We as their nominal employers will have little trouble finding someone who will do the job properly and in good faith. Of course, I might as well start looking for the yellow brick road to the emerald city as both worlds have about the same likelihood of becoming a reality.
Comments have been closed on this topic.