| Author | Post |
|---|
BB62
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 02:34 pm |
|
langzaiguy wrote: Well I guess we'll just have to OC then. Though, the county attorney will prosecute I suppose.
This is VERY tempting to test!
Any updates?
(my emphasis above)
This is just what I've asked Old dog in the fight, twice now, in the thread - along with an offer.
Nothing has been posted publically, nor have I received a PM.
|
Butterbone
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 5th, 2009 04:44 pm |
|
You know with the current public prosecutor of Kenton County unable to prosecute traffic violations and other civil and misdemeanor issues simply because he has no money left to pay his people or paralegals or researchers or anything, he may have been looking to "stop short" any possible issues of a big group of armed people walking around the airport and causing a stink.
He may have just been trying to put a little back off time and space into the situation with his rather unreasonable tough talk. Cause that part about banning on any property the county owns, won't hold up, and precedently hasn't held up, and I think the last thing he wants to do is get beaten, while his department is broke, on an issue that is so visibly favored against his stance from the state supreme court already.
He may have interpreted your inquiries as a challenge since from his point of view the county and state governments ability to fund legal defenses and prosecutions is on hard times.
Kind of like you were trying to "kick him and his department, while they are down".
Had you considered that?
Never ignore the other parties point of view. Even if you think you know what it is. What you will find is that most of the time you really don't know it. You just made assumptions. That's some generic wisdom their. Not applied to anyone in particular.
|
BB62
State Researcher
|
Posted: Mon Oct 5th, 2009 05:13 pm |
|
Butterbone wrote: ...He may have interpreted your inquiries as a challenge since from his point of view the county and state governments ability to fund legal defenses and prosecutions is on hard times.
Kind of like you were trying to "kick him and his department, while they are down".
Had you considered that?
Never ignore the other parties point of view. Even if you think you know what it is. What you will find is that most of the time you really don't know it. You just made assumptions. That's some generic wisdom their. Not applied to anyone in particular.
Your point?
The prosecutor can and will interpret things how he likes, for reasons known or unknown to others - AS WILL WE.
His job is to enforce the law, not engage in "tough guy" antics (IF that is what you're suggesting he might be doing).
I don't see how your comment adds anything to the discussion. Can you elaborate?
On another matter, I sure wish we would hear something from KC3 after all the tough talk.
Last edited on Mon Oct 5th, 2009 05:19 pm by BB62
|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1678 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 08:49 am |
|
BB62 wrote: The prosecutor can and will interpret things how he likes, for reasons known or unknown to others - AS WILL WE.
The difference is this: if the prosecutor is wrong in his interpretation, then you get arrested, charged, spend thousands in legal fees, and might still go to jail. If you're wrong in your interpretation, then you get arrested, charged, spend thousands in legal fees, and you do go to jail.
|
BB62
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 05:42 pm |
|
KBCraig wrote: BB62 wrote: The prosecutor can and will interpret things how he likes, for reasons known or unknown to others - AS WILL WE.
The difference is this: if the prosecutor is wrong in his interpretation, then you get arrested, charged, spend thousands in legal fees, and might still go to jail. If you're wrong in your interpretation, then you get arrested, charged, spend thousands in legal fees, and you do go to jail.
Still, your point??
Nothing is different now than at any other time - each party takes risks.
Last edited on Tue Oct 6th, 2009 05:42 pm by BB62
|
Butterbone
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13th, 2009 02:47 pm |
|
It adds to the discussion by asking if the "advesarial attitude" is overall hurting the position of the people more than helping.
By coming at it from the point of view that the prosecutor is an enemy to your freedom you are going to force him into an oppositional stance just for saving face.
It never hurts to consider both sides of a situation.
While your primary concern is your personal liberty you are ignoring the reality that the population as a whole has become OK with the idea of regular people not carrying firearms, and it is alarming and frightening to some of them to the point that they immediately associate anyone with a firearm who is not in uniform, as a clear and present danger to themselves and others.
On top of that you are demanding to be able to carry a firearm into a situation that 70% of the population get worried about enough just being there. Flying, is scary to more people than it is not scary. They are scared every time they get on a plane. They also have a stigma attached to hijackers now that they may not have had before.
But you are ignoring everything and everyone, except for yourself, and the very narrow interpretation of freedom that you "want" to ensure isn't taken from you.
So it's OK for you to ignore everything but your own immediate interests, regardless of how that impacts other people.
But it is not OK for someone else to take any stance that is contrary to yours.
Good luck with changing peoples minds, and making a case that doesn't come across as the rantings of an angry fanatic who just wants to stomp around and intimidate people with his big scary gun.
|
langzaiguy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 01:38 am |
|
I agree we can't come across as angry militants, but the notion that we appease the masses is simply ridiculous.
We've all heard it said that it's a bad idea to sacrifice liberty for safety. It's even more foolish to sacrifice liberty for the PERCEPTION of public safety.
They are backing us into a corner with prohibiting our firearms. I personally believe that as a public entity, they are able to ban CC. That means that my only other option to protect myself and my family is to OC. If I OC at the airport it will be for a reason--not simply to educate people. If I am in an ill-lit portion of a parking garage or baggage claim or whatever the case may be, I'm going to utilize my "narrow" perspective of freedom.
So yeah, how does that constitute as a "narrow" perspective of freedom?
The US & KY constitutions plainly say that we have the right to bear arms and protect our freedoms. The KY constitution says that congress may only regulate CC. This is very straight forward--nowhere are we reading in between the lines.
|
gutshot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 05:14 am |
|
An interesting court decision from PA.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d11-DA-says-Pittsburgh-airport-gun-ban-not-enforceable
|
M1Gunr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 04:19 pm |
|
langzaiguy wrote:We've all heard it said that it's a bad idea to sacrifice liberty for safety. It's even more foolish to sacrifice liberty for the PERCEPTION of public safety.
They are backing us into a corner with prohibiting our firearms. I personally believe that as a public entity, they are able to ban CC. That means that my only other option to protect myself and my family is to OC. If I OC at the airport it will be for a reason--not simply to educate people.
+1
|
Current time is 11:22 am | Page:   ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
|
