| Author | Post |
|---|
Venator
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 03:30 pm |
|
PT111 wrote: yes if i were to cause damages without insurance I would still be liable even if i did not carry liability insurance. yes if i were to cause damages i would be in great financial hardship in order to cover those damages. yes if i were to cause damages it would be my responsibility to pay for said damages. no one ever said i would not be responsible and not pay for the damages i caused if such damages were to occur. those are the risks one takes when they do not have insurance - sure i could be out a ton. that's my dice to roll, not yours to judge me on.
BS on that. My mother was hit head on by a driver while stopped on her side of the road with no way to avoid him. He had no insurance, no property and no way to pay the hospital bills that my family incurred due to it. My grandmother's hip was broken and for six weeks after she had to stay in the bed while we paid someone to look after her. After that she used a walker for another three months. Thank goodness my 6 year old sister and 6 year old cousin were strapped in and did not go face first into the windshield like my mother did. 35 years later my mother still finds pieces of glass in her forehead.
It my be your dice to roll but you are gambling with other people's lives and they could be out a ton because of your carelessness. And the other driver, he had never had an automobile accident in his 71 years of living.
Didn't your family have insurance? If you take care of your own family first rather than depending on others to do it, that may be a better life plan. Lesson, don't rely on others for assistance. Always assume you will have to cover whatever life throws at you.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 04:21 am |
|
Exactly, the whole concept of mandatory insurance is BS.
If you want to be insured against injury in an auto accident, take responsibility for yourself and supply you and your family with insurance. Don't rely on the state or the responsibility of others, or you'll be screwed when you get hit by an illegal immigrant the state was unable to force to buy insurance.
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 11:17 am |
|
marshaul wrote: Exactly, the whole concept of mandatory insurance is BS.
If you want to be insured against injury in an auto accident, take responsibility for yourself and supply you and your family with insurance. Don't rely on the state or the responsibility of others, or you'll be screwed when you get hit by an illegal immigrant the state was unable to force to buy insurance.
So we are no longer expected to be responsible for our actions? Suppose you are standing in your front yard and a drunk runs into your yard, kills your 2 year old son and puts you in a wheelchair for life. Shouldn't they have to pay something besides four years in jail? No wonder medical costs are so high, the few that can pay are having to pay for those who don't have to take responsibiliy for thier actions. Whay does anyone need insurance, just let those that want to pay for all those that don't want to.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 01:18 pm |
|
PT111 wrote: marshaul wrote: Exactly, the whole concept of mandatory insurance is BS.
If you want to be insured against injury in an auto accident, take responsibility for yourself and supply you and your family with insurance. Don't rely on the state or the responsibility of others, or you'll be screwed when you get hit by an illegal immigrant the state was unable to force to buy insurance.
So we are no longer expected to be responsible for our actions? Suppose you are standing in your front yard and a drunk runs into your yard, kills your 2 year old son and puts you in a wheelchair for life. Shouldn't they have to pay something besides four years in jail? No wonder medical costs are so high, the few that can pay are having to pay for those who don't have to take responsibiliy for thier actions. Whay does anyone need insurance, just let those that want to pay for all those that don't want to.
How did you get any of that from what I posted? When did I say people shouldn't be liable for damages they incur? You've taken what I said and twisted it backwards.
What I said was simple: if you worry about uninsured drivers (which exist despite laws to the contrary) you had better insure yourself. How does that translate to paying for the other guy, too? If you're not liable, you don't owe anything. Buying insurance in case the guy who causes the accident is uinsured is prudent. Relying on him to have insurance is irresponsible.
You have turned the concept of responsibility 180 degrees around. Your post is so damn stupid that I'm having a hard time addressing it properly. Seriously, trying to formulate a response to you reminds me of the "water" scene in Idiotocracy.
The problem with mandatory liability insurance is simple: it encourages irresponsible people like yourself and your family to rely on the state to provide insurance by way of regulating the other driver, and when you get screwed for being irresponsible you come and whine at us even though you're the one who didn't take responsibility for your own life and limb (or in this case your mother).
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 02:39 pm |
|
marshaul wrote: PT111 wrote: marshaul wrote: Exactly, the whole concept of mandatory insurance is BS.
If you want to be insured against injury in an auto accident, take responsibility for yourself and supply you and your family with insurance. Don't rely on the state or the responsibility of others, or you'll be screwed when you get hit by an illegal immigrant the state was unable to force to buy insurance.
So we are no longer expected to be responsible for our actions? Suppose you are standing in your front yard and a drunk runs into your yard, kills your 2 year old son and puts you in a wheelchair for life. Shouldn't they have to pay something besides four years in jail? No wonder medical costs are so high, the few that can pay are having to pay for those who don't have to take responsibiliy for thier actions. Whay does anyone need insurance, just let those that want to pay for all those that don't want to.
How did you get any of that from what I posted? When did I say people shouldn't be liable for damages they incur? You've taken what I said and twisted it backwards.
What I said was simple: if you worry about uninsured drivers (which exist despite laws to the contrary) you had better insure yourself. How does that translate to paying for the other guy, too? If you're not liable, you don't owe anything. Buying insurance in case the guy who causes the accident is uinsured is prudent. Relying on him to have insurance is irresponsible.
You have turned the concept of responsibility 180 degrees around. Your post is so damn stupid that I'm having a hard time addressing it properly. Seriously, trying to formulate a response to you reminds me of the "water" scene in Idiotocracy.
The problem with mandatory liability insurance is simple: it encourages irresponsible people like yourself and your family to rely on the state to provide insurance by way of regulating the other driver, and when you get screwed for being irresponsible you come and whine at us even though you're the one who didn't take responsibility for your own life and limb (or in this case your mother).
Who said we didn't take responsibility for our own life and limb. You are the one saying that there is not need to carry liability insurance because it is yout own responsibility to be covered if an illegal immigrant or a freestater runs over you. That they have no responsibility to pay for your hospital bills. You are the one saying it is fine for me to run over you without insurance because it is your responsibility to have insurance. It is fine to go out driving drunk and kill people because it is their responsibility to have insurance to pay their burial cost. You just serve a few years in jail and then get out ready to resume your life with all rights restored.
For your information we had insurance that paid most of the bills. The state, you and I paid for his burial. That illegal imigrant that you mention. Who will pay his hospital bills? You and I. The motorcycle rider who gets his skull fractured because of no helmoet and with no insurance, who will pay his hospital bills. Again you and I will pay those bills for him to exercise his rights. Same way with seat belts and a hundred other rights.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 30th, 2008 12:05 am |
|
PT111 wrote:
marshaul wrote: PT111 wrote: marshaul wrote: Exactly, the whole concept of mandatory insurance is BS.
If you want to be insured against injury in an auto accident, take responsibility for yourself and supply you and your family with insurance. Don't rely on the state or the responsibility of others, or you'll be screwed when you get hit by an illegal immigrant the state was unable to force to buy insurance.
So we are no longer expected to be responsible for our actions? Suppose you are standing in your front yard and a drunk runs into your yard, kills your 2 year old son and puts you in a wheelchair for life. Shouldn't they have to pay something besides four years in jail? No wonder medical costs are so high, the few that can pay are having to pay for those who don't have to take responsibiliy for thier actions. Whay does anyone need insurance, just let those that want to pay for all those that don't want to.
How did you get any of that from what I posted? When did I say people shouldn't be liable for damages they incur? You've taken what I said and twisted it backwards.
What I said was simple: if you worry about uninsured drivers (which exist despite laws to the contrary) you had better insure yourself. How does that translate to paying for the other guy, too? If you're not liable, you don't owe anything. Buying insurance in case the guy who causes the accident is uinsured is prudent. Relying on him to have insurance is irresponsible.
You have turned the concept of responsibility 180 degrees around. Your post is so damn stupid that I'm having a hard time addressing it properly. Seriously, trying to formulate a response to you reminds me of the "water" scene in Idiotocracy.
The problem with mandatory liability insurance is simple: it encourages irresponsible people like yourself and your family to rely on the state to provide insurance by way of regulating the other driver, and when you get screwed for being irresponsible you come and whine at us even though you're the one who didn't take responsibility for your own life and limb (or in this case your mother).
Who said we didn't take responsibility for our own life and limb. You are the one saying that there is not need to carry liability insurance because it is yout own responsibility to be covered if an illegal immigrant or a freestater runs over you. That they have no responsibility to pay for your hospital bills. You are the one saying it is fine for me to run over you without insurance because it is your responsibility to have insurance. It is fine to go out driving drunk and kill people because it is their responsibility to have insurance to pay their burial cost. You just serve a few years in jail and then get out ready to resume your life with all rights restored.
For your information we had insurance that paid most of the bills. The state, you and I paid for his burial. That illegal imigrant that you mention. Who will pay his hospital bills? You and I. The motorcycle rider who gets his skull fractured because of no helmoet and with no insurance, who will pay his hospital bills. Again you and I will pay those bills for him to exercise his rights. Same way with seat belts and a hundred other rights.
A: When did I say that not being forced to purchase liability insurance means people should also not be liable for damages they incur?
B: You don't pay for the illegal if you aren't liable. Insurance is irrelevant to this fact.
You've treated what I wrote as though, were I to argue that firearms owners need not possess liability insurance, you would turn it around and say I think firearms owners shouldn't be liable for people they shoot.
Please read what I write, and do not argue against "points" I've never made.
I will be very clear. People are, and should be, liable for damages they incur. However, no law can force all people to be insured. This means that some people will inevitably be screwed for relying on the state to provide insurance. If you don't rely on this, but instead purchase your own security, you have nothing to cry about when you get hit by an uninsured driver.
This is getting more like Idiotocracy with each post. You are unable to respond to my actual argument, so instead you resort to straw men, attacking arguments I never made.
|
CJ
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | VT, AK |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 30th, 2008 12:56 am |
|
MarkNH wrote: Shawn wrote: Listening to her, she stated there are some interesting facts about NH law, like if its not a common pistol, then you don't need a permit (I can't cite statue). So, what type of weapon were you guys carrying?
Shawn, are you sure you understood her correctly?
The NH law on concealed carry applies to any modern* firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
* Modern in this context excludes antique firearms where the definition of antique is "utilizing an early type of ignition, including, but not limited to, flintlocks, wheel locks, matchlocks, percussions and pin-fire, but no pistol, gun cane, or revolver which utilizes readily available center fire or rim-fire cartridges which are in common, current use shall be deemed to be an antique pistol, gun cane, or revolver."
In other words unless Bill was carrying two old blackpower pistols or two handguns with 16 inch barrels, or two handguns that fire ammunition not readily available** the law applies to him.
** The readily available clause may help someone one day but then it will all come down to a definition of readily available, is ammunition readily available if you can buy it on the surplus market, as components for handloading, on gunbroker?
.22 short dates from 1857 but you can still buy it today, .32 S&W has been around since 1870, .45 LC dates to 1873, etc etc, all of those are readily available.
Can anyone suggest a caliber that you can't buy or reload today but would still trust your life to carrying a handgun in that caliber?
12 or 15 mm pinfire. .38 and .44 rimfire. .44 bulldog. None are readily available but would be effective if loaded to their full abilities. I'd make things simpler though, I'd carry my Colt Walker (cap and ball, and more powerful than my .45 acp 1911 at that). According to, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-4.htm "A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges" if there isn't another section or law saying otherwise, a non-cartridge firing gun not loaded with cartridges (maybe they'd try to argue paper cartridges are cartridges for the purposes of the law if you used them) could be carried concealed (or loaded in a vehicle openly) with a license. This exception if I'm indeed fully correct on it, makes for some interesting possibilities for NH members who don't want a license to "conceal carry" (including open car carry).
|
Gunslinger
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 10th, 2008 07:25 pm |
|
ivyleague28477 wrote: cato wrote: Sounds like you're headed for a jury trial. Good luck. Have your attorney set up a LDF.
Bill's wife here. As Bill stated near the end of his post, we have set up a fund to help with the legal expenses. http://williamwalker.chipin.com should get folks there. Any little bit can help.
My case is separate from his. They clearly violated my rights, as they have seized and still remain in possession of my sidearm and ammunition when I have the conceal carry license they require. They are requiring I jump through all kinds of legal hoops to get it back, when it was wrongfully seized in the first place. They told the media I was charged with things I was never charged with. They need to be stopped, and we both hope Bill's case is the one to change things for the better here in New Hampshire.
They have no case against you; you have a strong case against them. What law are you charged with violating? They violated your constitution rights to be secure in your person against unlawful search and seizure and commited false arrest and battery. Very strong case in Federal court. And a good lawyer can parlay it into getting the charges against your husband dropped. I believe his search was unlawful and their finding his gun is 'fruit of the poison tree.'
http://www.gunlaws.com/gloaup-civilrights.htm
Last edited on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 07:26 pm by Gunslinger
|
ProtectedBy9mm
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19th, 2008 11:58 pm |
|
NavyLT wrote: ..."Upon approaching the vehicle, he learned that the driver was wearing body armor, as well as carrying concealed weapons and concealed ammunition underneath his clothing," Officer Paul Rondeau said.
Police said Walker had two pistols and ammunition concealed inside his waistband. He was taken into custody.
"He didn't have a permit to conceal either the weapon or the ammunition," Rondeau said.
The passenger in the truck, Sharon Ankrom, was also arrested. Police said she initially gave them a false name and also tucked a pistol under her seat. She is licensed to carry the pistol.... ...along with numerous fully loaded magazines, concealed in his waistband...
is it just me, or is that ALOT of gear to be rollin' around with at any given moment? i mean, were you two out on a Spec-Op.?
Last edited on Thu Nov 20th, 2008 12:00 am by ProtectedBy9mm
|
ivyleague28477
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31st, 2009 04:34 pm |
|
Just an update to our situation.
I represented myself (somewhat) successfully.
The Disorderly Conduct charge was DISMISSED by the judge before even going to trial. He concurred that, if I had a right to bear arms in defense of my person(s) and/or property, than I conversely had the right to disarm myself with the same interests in mind when I (allegedly) placed my sidearm under the seat when the officer illuminated his lights.
The False Report to Law Enforcement charge I was found NOT GUILTY. The judge concurred there is no law in NH requiring a person to identify oneself to an officer, let alone by a *specific* or *particular* name. Further, the judge concurred there is no "pistol permit" in New Hampshire, so when I answered "No" when the police asked if I had one, that answer was a true statement, since what we have in this state is a License to Conceal Carry; not a permit, and not for the pistol.
I (as expected) was found guilty on the motor vehicle violations. I'll be appealing those, but that's somewhat irrelevant to this forum, thread, and/or topic, so I wont get into those details and take this thread off topic again.
Thanks for the well wishes from those who gave them.
|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 1st, 2009 02:57 am |
|
A further update: all gun charges dropped! (The "Evan" referred to is gun rights attorney Evan Nappen.)
https://www.nhteaparty.org/index.php/topic,1299.msg13192.html#msg13192
ivyleague28477 wrote:
Hi all.
So, to update everyone on what happened today:
About a week and a half ago, Evan filed a motion to dismiss both of the conceal carry charges against Bill, on the basis that he has a valid and current Virginia conceal carry license, which (in VA) is issued by the courts. The argument was that, because it is a court issued document, NH should recognize it under the full faith and credit clause.
Last week the prosecutor came at us with a deal: he would drop all the charges except one of the conceal carry charges, which he would drop to a Class B misdemeanor.
Bill and I said no deal. We didn't want any gun-related charges on his record period. Evan was told no deal and he prepared for trial today.
So we arrived today ready to fight. The prosecutor and Evan chatted back and forth a few times. Eventually, there was a proposal whereby Bill would agree to not contest (plead "nolo contendre") a charge of class b misdemeanor disorderly conduct. This charge would hold a fine of $500, $200 to be paid today and $300 suspended for 1 year. In exchange, the prosecutor would drop both charges of conceal carrying without a license, would drop the charge of misuse of plates, and would allow for a "no finding" for one year the driving after suspension or revocation charge.
We have to get back over to the court sometime today to pay the $200, but otherwise we are good to go.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 1st, 2009 01:54 pm |
|
KBCraig wrote: A further update: all gun charges dropped! (The "Evan" referred to is gun rights attorney Evan Nappen.)
https://www.nhteaparty.org/index.php/topic,1299.msg13192.html#msg13192
ivyleague28477 wrote:
Hi all.
So, to update everyone on what happened today:
About a week and a half ago, Evan filed a motion to dismiss both of the conceal carry charges against Bill, on the basis that he has a valid and current Virginia conceal carry license, which (in VA) is issued by the courts. The argument was that, because it is a court issued document, NH should recognize it under the full faith and credit clause.
Last week the prosecutor came at us with a deal: he would drop all the charges except one of the conceal carry charges, which he would drop to a Class B misdemeanor.
Bill and I said no deal. We didn't want any gun-related charges on his record period. Evan was told no deal and he prepared for trial today.
So we arrived today ready to fight. The prosecutor and Evan chatted back and forth a few times. Eventually, there was a proposal whereby Bill would agree to not contest (plead "nolo contendre") a charge of class b misdemeanor disorderly conduct. This charge would hold a fine of $500, $200 to be paid today and $300 suspended for 1 year. In exchange, the prosecutor would drop both charges of conceal carrying without a license, would drop the charge of misuse of plates, and would allow for a "no finding" for one year the driving after suspension or revocation charge.
We have to get back over to the court sometime today to pay the $200, but otherwise we are good to go.
Not a bad ending at all - could have been better without the expense though.
Yata hey
|
AJG
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 1st, 2009 03:04 pm |
|
| Wow, I definately dont understand why you agreed to anything but all charges dropped!
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 1st, 2009 03:39 pm |
|
AJG wrote: Wow, I definately dont understand why you agreed to anything but all charges dropped!
My guess is cheaper (att'y fees), tired of all, regain the "privilege" to carry and no further risk however slight to conviction on weapons charges.
Yata hey
|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 05:17 am |
|
Maybe Bill or Ivy will be along to explain further, but my understanding is that they had him fairly dead to rights on the issue of operating after suspension. The only question was that the original stop for faulty equipment (muffler) was bogus; the tow truck driver even expressed surprise and said it wasn't loud at all.
|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 18th, 2009 02:51 pm |
|
http://www.pgnh.org/manchester_prosecutor_drops_gun_charges_in_high_profile_case
PRESS RELEASE -- Contact Evan F. Nappen, Esq., (603) 223-0001
Manchester, New Hampshire, April 6, 2009 - A recent gun-friendly outcome in a New Hampshire District Court could have positive implications for those who want to carry a concealed handgun. Prosecutors at the Manchester District Court dropped both counts of "carrying a concealed handgun without a license" against a man who was described by the media as "heavily armed," carrying two loaded handguns and spare loaded magazines, and wearing body armor. The case received television coverage and national publicity via an Associated Press story.
William Walker was defended by attorney Evan F. Nappen of Concord (http://www.efnappen.com), the Corporate Counsel of the state-wide organization Pro-Gun New Hampshire (http://www.PGNH.org), and one of its five Directors. Nappen argued on motion that New Hampshire must honor the man's Virginia concealed carry permit because of the Federal Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause. This is significant because New Hampshire does not officially maintain concealed carry reciprocity with Virginia. Unlike marriage licenses and driver licenses, state concealed carry licenses are generally honored by other states through reciprocal state-to-state agreements - but Virginia is not among the states listed on the New Hampshire Department of Safety's Web page of such reciprocity agreements, http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/plupr.html.
In a plea agreement reached with the State, both counts of "carrying a concealed handgun without a license" were dropped, and all firearms, magazines and accessories ordered returned by the State. Mr. Walker pled "No Contest" to disorderly conduct and a motor vehicle violation. He received a $500 fine with $300 of it being suspended.
It's not clear what will happen to the next person "caught" carrying with only a Virginia license, but the case serves as an instructional precedent, although not a binding one. Now there is one more arrow in the legal argument quiver of those who wish to peaceably exercise their gun rights without a New Hampshire carry license.
|
Current time is 05:35 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 |
|
|
|
