You have shown poor judgement IMO, you don't get a gun(legally). Question if you would have stayed and waited would you have been charged?
Most I've ever agreed w/ Germ; especially the last part. None of what I'm about to list are fail safes. Not all of them are necessarily appropriate in all schools. But all of them are "doing something" that might actually prevent or at least mitigate the next maniacal plot. Putting armed guards in schools Arming those teachers who want to be and who are trained. Restricting access points (metal detectors, etc). Eliminating the "PROMISE" program (thanks yet again, Obama and Holder.) Mandating all states to join the NICS system Coalescing mental health records of a certain type and the NICS database Something else I was thinking about. I don't have kids, but all my nieces and nephews who are in public school over 3 states were issued iPads. It's almost the year 2020 - why the heck are kids still using paper books? Why aren't all texts on the intranets (accessed/paid for by licensing fees)? There is no real need to carry anything into or out of a school anymore. Every kid could get 2 iPads. One that stays in the school, one that gets sent home. If you need to "show your work" in math, etc. there are stylus apps that you can save as a document and then submit with your homework. You can take and submit pictures and videos of more physical tasks. Sure kids are kids and some will get lost/stolen/fenced. But the same could be said for books and the administrators can permanently lock in "find my iPad" and mitigate that. Content can also be restricted by administrators (sorry Charlie, no porn on school property.) iPads are suprisingly durable with an OtterBox-type case. I have one issued by my office and it's now about 4 years old and has been through hell- thrown in and out of my car, into the bottom of a backpack filled w/ heavy equipment, etc. It works fine. This one is permanently lojack-enabled and has content restrictions (thankfully, not bowhunting.com ) I'm advocating this as a security measure to substantially reduce the amount of backpacks in and out of a school. Those kids who aren't carrying in anything more than a wallet and cellphone can go through the "fast lane" metal detectors, those with bags/large items could go in through the TSA-style checkpoints. Other benefits would be overall lower costs (iPads are only about $300, last several years, and would stay assigned to the child so long as they are in the same school district, replaced as necessary) and licensing fees are cheaper than published paper books - and lot less wasteful in terms of paper. Just proposing some ideas rather than "doing nothing."
I was in college when a bouncer at a bar attacked me by throwing a haymaker at me that glanced. He then picked me up and tried to body slam me. I somehow slithered out and knocked that big old clown out. Two days later the local sheriff shows at my house with an arrest warrant for misdemeanor assault and battery. I was the victim, yet unbeknownst to me the big tough guy bouncer was in law school at my college. He was actually interning with a local judge. How grand is that.....the assailant goes and gets an arrest warrant for me, then I am tried in the same court room in which he interns. Real fair. Thank goodness I was found not guilty. If the assailant would have brought one "witness" who either lied or told a half truth that I was the aggressor, I would have been convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery. So no, I do not believe a person should be disqualified from owning a gun for an assault and battery conviction. Here in Virginia, domestic violence between persons is a mandatory arrest. Two 18 year old and 19 year old brothers get a little pissed at one another, start pushing, then one brother slaps the other. Mandatory domestic assault and battery arrest. Guilty. Does that mean that kid should not be able to have a gun when he gets older? Hell, my brothers and I would have been arrested a dozen times for fighting each other growing up.
I’m not exactly sure what would have happened if I stuck around. He had a few friends there that lied and gave false statements. I was lucky enough to have random witnesses come forward and oppose them. I honestly think the detective had a hard on for me because I wouldn’t talk to him. I guess it does make a guy seem guilty to avoid the law but I only did what my atty advised me to do. After all the evidence came out the prosecutor offered me misdemeanor battery with no probation instead of a double felony which was looking at 7-10 yrs. That shows a lot right there. The guy almost died so they know they will be under fire if they completely drop the charges. My attorney said we had good chance to get misdemeanor dropped but it would take more money and a trial. I accepted the deal. If it would have meant losing my gun rights I would have went to trial. And if I had to do it all over again I would have protected myself just the same because it really was self defense. The only thing I was guilty of was being wrong place at wrong time. I would never harm anyone for no reason.....Ok Maybe I would have tried to choke him out instead of an elbow. But if your view was law germ I know there would be many guns out of the hands of people who would never use them to commit horrendous acts. Just what if a guy and his family was carjacked or robbed and killed and he couldn’t protect himself because he wasn’t allowed to have a gun due to some stupid bar fight 15 years ago. The difference between me and a guy that would walk into a school and shoot up a bunch of kids is that if I did mess up and wasn’t legal to possess a firearm I wouldn’t have one. The other guy would find out where to get one. I agree 100% some kind of effort should be made to enhance the protection of our kids and schools. Kids shouldn’t have to be scared While trying to get an education. Armed guards and metal detectors could be a start but how do you know an armed guard won’t go bananas one day. It really is a complex issue. And when these morons figure out a shotgun would be a wayyyy more effective tool for close range harm than a scary looking .223 plinker. Oh God help us. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
I could honestly see it being like airports. Armed Guards/ Security, metal detectors and x-ray machines. Won’t deter bad people from doing bad things but sounds like a compromise I’d be willing to buck up for as a tax payer. If it makes the kids/staff. feel safer. Not sure of the logistics or costs but if our airports can do it then our school system should be able to. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
Ask and ye shall receive http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ues-****s-sporting-goods-refusing-sell-rifle/
Lol, I'm surprised it took that long. And...unlike the case with the gay wedding cake, the consumer in this case has a constitutionally guaranteed right to own, at least until the law is changed. There's really no way of arguing the case from the retailers standpoint...the case should be a slam dunk. Until and if legislation is changed, retailers really have no leg to stand on for refusing a sale to someone of legal age to buy and own, be it a gun or a pack of gum. In order for this retailer to try to walk a fine line...ie...continuing to sell the weapons in question yet trying to self regulate the sale of them by age class, they literally and willingly enacted a policy of age discrimination. I think it's hilarious. This is not the way things are supposed to work in this country. If they disagree with the law then they are given two options...live with it until they can successfully petition a real change in legislature or stop selling the guns completely to anyone. There is no middle ground that's legally safe. Had I been under 21, I would have intentionally done this just to kick these retailers in the scrotum and prove a point. This is really beyond the argument if purchase should be disallowed until 21 or not, it's about constitutional rights, rule of law and due process. Without legislation it's just fundamentally wrong as the law stands right now as far as I understand it.
I was in 8th grade and rode the school bus to and from school everyday when I was not in sports there was a bully on the bus he was a 9th grader that got held back. Kid was a **** to everybody that was younger. One day on the way to school Charlie thought he would jack my head into the bus window for laughs. I didn't do anything then I just sat there and got pissed and more pissed, soon as we got off the bus and into school I went off on charlie swinging for the fences I even hit him with his trumpet case and damaged his trumpet broke his glasses and I broke my right hand on the side of his head. I got suspended for 3 days and grounded by my parents, in todays world I would have been charged and sent to court ordered anger management or some kind of therapy but tell you what Charlies days of being a bully on the bus were over he got his butt kicked by an 8th grader.
Something that hasn't been mentioned yet...but kids should be given more leeway to duke it out. All that pent up frustration turns to rage.... None of these kids knows what it takes to be a man - because the process has been taken from them, and/or they have no one to show them the path.
If one or both persons want to press assault charges after the fight, they can, even if the fight was originally mutual combat. Hopefully the justice system can sniff out the bs, but occasionally it can't and a person is convicted. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
According to the article, his action is based on Oregon law. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that Oregon law would only apply in Oregon. Age discrimination is not one of those matters covered by the Constitution according to the Supremes. Federal law on age discrimination mainly involves employment. We would also have to look at the specifics of the Oregon statute and Oregon case law. It's a little early to start celebrating. And remember, even if he wins, it only applies to Oregon.
