JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Total BS - if abortion is legal, and they say it's ok because it's not a baby, then a fetus dying as a result of anything can't be a crime because it's not a person being killed.

I'm not attempting to be inflammatory and spark a political debate. Merely addressing the humongous paradox that exists.
 
That is the difference between Alabama and New York State.

Again, as an American. Traveling from one state to the next shouldn't have such different laws that in one state what is legal in another state is illegal. If ignorance of the law doesn't justify innocence, how the heck are Americans supposed to keep track of potentially 50 different versions of the law depending on the state they happen to traveling in.

Rant over.
 
Again, as an American. Traveling from one state to the next shouldn't have such different laws that in one state what is legal in another state is illegal. If ignorance of the law doesn't justify innocence, how the heck are Americans supposed to keep track of potentially 50 different versions of the law depending on the state they happen to traveling in.

Rant over.

It is your duty as a driver or firearms carrier to the laws of each state that you enter.
 
tenor.gif

(Pleasant Grove ... I have a long time client there. Fine chap and institution. The community? Not even remotely surprised.)
 
everyone who fires a gun is responsible for what that bullet hits. always know your backstop. :)

Sure, the defender would be liable, but would the aggressor ALSO be liable? It follows the same thinking that says if a party of people go do an armed robbery, and one of them kills someone, they are all responsible for the murder. Or like that 20something in a midwest state who killed three home invaders and the girl who was acting as getaway driver picked up three murder charges: Oklahoma man killed three teen home intruders using AR-15 rifle
 
Understood, seems rather archaic that rules at which our country operate by can so drastically change due to an ambiguous imaginary line on a map.

The endless debate about Federal Power vs. States' Rights.

On the "pro" side of Federal power, is consistency across all states (eliminates those imaginary lines and arbitrary rule changes).

On the "con" side of Federal power, is consistency across all states (you can't escape CA-type laws by moving to a better state).
 
The endless debate about Federal Power vs. States' Rights.

On the "pro" side of Federal power, is consistency across all states (eliminates those imaginary lines and arbitrary rule changes).

On the "con" side of Federal power, is consistency across all states (you can't escape CA-type laws by moving to a better state).

Yep, seems like if we used the constitution as the rule of the land it would fine, clearly California has been giving it the middle finger for a while.
 
Your state my vary, but the good intent of you lawful defensive shot follows the bullet She was killed during an apparent road-rage shooting. But Indiana law protects the shooter

Interesting one. A and B are in car1, C is in car2. A shoots at C. C defends by shooting at A, misses and kills B. C is not liable (in Indiana) because it was self-defense.

B's mom is ticked off that nobody is charged with her daughter's death. If Indiana applied a rule as in the Alabama case, then A could be charged with his passenger's -- B's -- killing because as the aggressor, A is responsible for all the surrounding aftermath.
 
Yep, seems like if we used the constitution as the rule of the land it would fine, clearly California has been giving it the middle finger for a while.

That's the thing though, when it gets down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. What if the SCOTUS was packed with Californians right now? Would you really want them setting the rules for everywhere? Where could you run to in that case?
 
That's the thing though, when it gets down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. What if the SCOTUS was packed with Californians right now? Would you really want them setting the rules for everywhere? Where could you run to in that case?

That's the difference between a anti-freedom party member and someone who is not.

The former will desire to "interpret the constitution," the latter simply desires for it to be read.
 
This is probably designed to be a test case for the US Supreme Court, and the pro abortion groups are taking it hook, line and sinker. They are promising to pay for lawyers to fight this charge all the way.
 
This is really interesting to watch. Many states have had statues for criminal acts if an unborn child is killed (not talking about abortion) for decades without hearing a peep out of anyone. Suddenly this is now tied to abortion??? I have always thought there was a strange contrast between these laws right to life issues. Surprised to took so long to surface.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top