How do we stop idiots like this guy ...

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[Alexx1401]

Homeowner shoots at man dumping raw sewage in neighborhood

<p>An outraged homeowner is accused of shooting at a man who was dumping raw sewage from an RV right in front of his house.</p>

www.google.com

<Sigh> Well again when the cities started bending over backward for scum I kept saying this was how it was going to go. People are going to start to take the law into their own hands. Sadly of course this is NOT how to handle this and the shooter is going to be in trouble but, again the voters do this to themselves. It's too bad we can't get the RV's to go dump their tanks in front of the homes of City Counsel, and Mayor's homes.

 

[Xaevian]

Homeowner shoots at man dumping raw sewage in neighborhood

<p>An outraged homeowner is accused of shooting at a man who was dumping raw sewage from an RV right in front of his house.</p>

www.google.com

 

[XoXSciFiGuy]

I already said a possible assault weapon ban might be part of any gun legislation. It's a proposed bill. They will argue about the provisions, and the details of them. A retroactive ban on legal ownership of previously-purchased weapons, unless they are something really weird, won't be part of the pie. They are asking for that so they can get other things. It's the old game, and very familiar.

I don't see how the Feds can get a retroactive law passed making possession of a semi-auto illegal. It's way too late for that. Did you see thousands of semi-auto owners lining up after the Clinton thing to surrender their weapons? Not a chance, and that's because they couldn't get that provision. Everyone knows it's senseless, and impossible to enforce.

Even if the bill makes it past committee for a vote, it still has to pass the Senate. They could restrict the purchase and importation of certain weapons. Or certain mods. They've done it before.

This came about because of foolish people who decided to abandon the ideas of sensibility and responsibility. Now there may be repercussions from all that, but you will still be able to blow away a burglar with your 12-gauge pump. I was in the Army back in the mid-70's. One thing I figured out REAL quick was that anyone not trained, not legal, and without common sense and morals...shouldn't get their hands an on M-16. They're fun to shoot. They are also only really good for one thing. What they were designed for. Anything else is fluff and fun, but in the wrong hands they can be a tragedy.

 

[The Heretic]

now I agree. Because the evidence at hand reasonably indicates something bigger than a misdemeanor. I would still let the cops do the investigating though...

Let's follow this thru. I wouldn't point a gun at someone for simple trespassing (being somewhere on my land and not snooping around my house/shop or vehicles), unless they threatened me in some way. I would either ask them what they were doing, and depending on their response I would maybe inform them they are trespassing and ask them to leave. If they don't leave as requested, I would call the sheriff and request assistance (a deputy lives about 2 miles away). I still would not point a gun at them unless threatened.

Now some details.

I have thousands of trees on my property. Most of these trees are individually worth thousands of dollars on the current timber market. Fire is a real danger, especially this time of year, not just to the timber, but to residences (we all live on our property) and lives. Including my land, there are hundreds of acres of clearcuts with brush now on them (until the replant takes hold) so the danger of fire consuming the mountain is very real and it would spread very fast.

It is also not unheard of for people to steal timber, sometimes simply for firewood, but also on the timber market (with forged contracts with the landowner). So I keep an eye open for vehicles on my property and for smoke (campfires) and an ear for chainsaws/equipment.

Squatting and dumping trash/animals is an issue in the countryside, especially if you have forested acreage with an access road. I have found things such as junk cars deep in woods, including on my family's farmland. And then there are poachers and hunters - each of these already have guns and they are using them.

So what happens when a human or humans are found trespassing can be fluid as it develops. Ditto with animals (bears and cougars traverse my land regularly - they cause me no problems, but I do not wish to encounter them unarmed). I am out there alone. So far, every time it has been a false alarm, but if I encounter someone or something, it is just me and them, and if they intend to harm me, then...

 

[STEELE]

Once again the Media seizes on any word that "excites" or shows the potential for sensationalism. What does "Hispanic" have to do with that idiot's actions? The Media loves any words that are considered sensitive, such as AK, AR, gun-violence, Black, etc. The Media needs to be part of the solution, not the problem. I quit my local newspaper because of their use of such words. I wish I could do that with the TV news which has become a platform for bias.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

This is the type of thing that will ultimately win the majority of the population over to banning guns. This is what the non gun owning person sees more often than not ... its no wonder why they vote the way they do.

Photos show Colorado man pulling gun on Hispanic couple after they performed a U-turn in his driveway

IMO most new gun owners don't know when they can use a gun (or threaten to use) and when they can't. They also don't know/don't respect the four basic rules of gun safety. That means there will be a lot more incidents like this and also accidents. So we can't stop people doing stupid things, but the more new gun owners that are educated on the above, the less often it will happen overall IMO.

 

[Dinglenutz]

So we can't stop people doing stupid things, but the more new gun owners that are educated on the above, the less often it will happen overall IMO.

Most CA gun laws are just plain stupid, but I have really mixed feelings about the safe handling demonstration that's required before taking possession. The demo was a slight PITA and pretty contrived, but after watching numerous Los Angelinos fail miserably multiple times, I can't say it's completely a waste of effort.

Almost though. I'm sure they retained very little.

Same with the requirement to have a firearms safety card. It's tough to know when to draw the line when the other side isn't interested in any form of reasonable discourse.

 

[Koda]

Most CA gun laws are just plain stupid, but I have really mixed feelings about the safe handling demonstration that's required before taking possession. The demo was a slight PITA and pretty contrived, but after watching numerous Los Angelinos fail miserably multiple times, I can't say it's completely a waste of effort.

Almost though. I'm sure they retained very little.

Same with the requirement to have a firearms safety card. It's tough to know when to draw the line when the other side isn't interested in any form of reasonable discourse.

If the entire gun control movement wasnt based on a prohibition model Id be more open to the "common sense" laws like mandatory training to carry....

But as it is, no.

 

[awshoot]

...
This particular guy thought he was in the right to defend his property from tresspassing, with lethal force. What an idiot.

Not only the legal misunderstanding -- if they had been actual bad guys, chasing them down, preventing them from leaving, and presenting yourself as target right in front of them is an extra dose of stupid.

 

[Geardo]

This is the type of thing that will ultimately win the majority of the population over to banning guns. This is what the non gun owning person sees more often than not ... its no wonder why they vote the way they do.

Photos show Colorado man pulling gun on Hispanic couple after they performed a U-turn in his driveway

A) the media + lockdown has everyone extremily on edge

B) their is always more to the story than the MSM article.

 

[awshoot]

the numbers do not support the assertion that gun owners are in the majority either. Just because we have X number of guns, doesn't mean we have that same number of gun owners. As mentioned in the article I posted, a number of gun owners own much more than a single gun.

I agree -- I would think that among gun owners, those who own a single firearm are a minority. That would be like having one kitchen knife or one screwdriver.

Also, the assertion that just because there are a lot of guns being bought recently means that most of those people are new gun owners is not necessarily true either. Surely some percentage are, but how many are new and how many are already owners? That there are "many" new gun owners is an assumption that we don't have evidence for.

They don't explain how they get their data -- maybe from states with true registries or backdoor registries, but I at least hope that the reported 2m (NRA) to 2.5m (NSSF) new gun ownders as of June 4, 2020 is correct:

Over 2M new gun owners reported in first half of 2020

More than 2 million Americans became first-time gun owners in the first half of 2020.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[awshoot]

...
Our ruling: True
The claim on the pro-gun Facebook page that an assault weapons ban bill was introduced in the House is TRUE. If passed, H.R. 5717 would ban semiautomatic assault weapons.

It's just the beginning. Joe Biden's website on gun control has this gem right after the assertion he'll ban black rifles:

Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.

 

[Mikej]

Once again the Media seizes on any word that "excites" or shows the potential for sensationalism. What does "Hispanic" have to do with that idiot's actions? The Media loves any words that are considered sensitive, such as AK, AR, gun-violence, Black, etc. The Media needs to be part of the solution, not the problem. I quit my local newspaper because of their use of such words. I wish I could do that with the TV news which has become a platform for bias.

Quit the TV first, then the paper. The TV talking heads aren't just taking heads any more. They are fully animated, with exaggerated facial expressions, breathless speaking and pushing a lean. Propaganda at is finest. At least the paper doesn't use the expression and body language. I don't do either medium anymore. I listen to radio news, just because it's there in the middle of what I do listen too. I wont even listen to Fox any more, just too depressing, them doing nothing more than countering what the crazy far left media pukes out.

 

[awshoot]

In this exact situation we are discussing the driver would have full legal defense to have shot the man menacing them with a firearm when there was no clear threat or intent to cause harm. Technically they were trespassing unknowingly by getting lost, the man pulls and points his pistol. If he was shot in return with that information, those people would never be convicted by a jury.

Agreed - trespassing is not the major crime people tend to think it is. It's annoying to be sure, but it is not a gun issue unless the trespasser is visibly armed and acting like a major crime is about to go down. In fact, just walking on someone's property or driving up a driveway isn't even legally considered trespassing in many states. For example if this had happened in WA, the people in the car did not trespass:

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.
(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.52.080: Criminal trespass in the second degree.

apps.leg.wa.gov

The difference between 1st and 2nd degree is that 1st degree requires going into a building knowingly, and the penalty for the most severe trespass, is a mere gross misdemeanor. Trespass is not a gun issue.

 

[awshoot]

....b ut chasing down a trespasser after the fact? Probably not - except maybe to get their license plate if they were up to no good. For making a u-turn on my property? ...

Not even then -- get a surveillance camera and get the plate that way. Also gives you proof over and above your word and doesn't risk an unnecessary encounter if the person turns out to be a very bad person.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Agree. Almost all us media now is "branded" left or right. There has been an effort for many years to get poeple to be loyal to their brand, rather than to seek the truth. That's why pretty much the only objective us news anymore you have to watch news from abroad.

 

[awshoot]

... A retroactive ban on legal ownership of previously-purchased weapons, unless they are something really weird, won't be part of the pie. ...

See my post above -- Joe Biden wants to NFA semiautos meaning you'd have to buy a tax stamp for each one or sell it "back" to the government. So a sort of non-ban that locks people out from ownership. I suppose we'd get a ruling from SCOTUS on whether the NFA is constitutional, but without another Trump appointee, I'd expect that to go badly.

 

[MannyGlocks]

Yeah, but if they trespass and find your still, way-ull, that aint no good...!

 

[The Heretic]

See my post above -- Joe Biden wants to NFA semiautos meaning you'd have to buy a tax stamp for each one or sell it "back" to the government. So a sort of non-ban that locks people out from ownership. I suppose we'd get a ruling from SCOTUS on whether the NFA is constitutional, but without another Trump appointee, I'd expect that to go badly.

We pretty much have precedent on the NFA. If there was a way to get them to rule the NFA unconstitutional we would have had it by now. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS rarely goes against precedent - it would be too inconvenient for the legal system.