Hero Defends Shop With Unregistered Gun

[elvis]

This is a classic argument for the "Tyranny of the Majority." Just because a majority of New York's population, through their elected officials, may want gun restrictions doesn't mean that it's right to do so. The rights of the minority must be defended as well. Those calling for this man's prosecution are saying that because the state of New York said so this man doesn't have the right to defend himself from criminals. No one can take away somebody's natural rights, which includes the right to self-defense.

Of course the man has the right to defend himself from criminals, where has anyone argued that in this thread?

Those calling for his prosecution are saying he doesn't have that right. You don't get prosecuted for doing something you have the right to do, therefore they're clearly saying he didn't have the right to defend himself because his gun wasn't registered with the state.

except, as much as I disagree with it, he has NO RIGHT to have an unregistered gun.

 

[elvis]

I've already pointed out that the law is in accordance with the Constitution. My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed. I said that you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority because you are making the argument that this man doesn't have the right to defend himself simply because the state of New York favors gun restrictions.

Where in this thread have I stated, that the store owner did not have the right to defend himself and his property? I haven't stated any such thing and I challenge you to link to any post stating such.

You have been making an emotional appeal. You have no worthy retort. If you did, you would have presented it.

You have contradicted yourself once again in this post Kevin. Either you believe the Constitution should be properly followed or you don't. Telling me you agree with the proper interpretation and adjudication of the II Amendment in one breath, while saying the law is unjust when the people have exercise their rights, is in fact a contradiction made by you.

Just because I don't agree with gun restriction laws, that does not mean that they are in fact unjust nor does it mean that I am stating that one does not have the right to defend themselves and their property.

Pick a side and stick to it Kevin. You can't play both fields and expect to have solid footing. You have no valid legal argument. What is left?

You claim the law is not unjust, and that this man broke the law. Therefore, you're saying that this man unjustly defended himself in violation of the law. That means you do not recognize his natural right to defend himself as superior to the positive law that says he can't.

It's not the defending himself that is illegal. It is the unregistered gun which is illegal. so he should be fined for the unregistered gun, but should receive no punishment for the self defense.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Of course the man has the right to defend himself from criminals, where has anyone argued that in this thread?

Those calling for his prosecution are saying he doesn't have that right. You don't get prosecuted for doing something you have the right to do, therefore they're clearly saying he didn't have the right to defend himself because his gun wasn't registered with the state.

except, as much as I disagree with it, he has NO RIGHT to have an unregistered gun.

In New York City.

Take that shotgun out of the city limits, and he doesn't have to have it registered in NY State.

 

[elvis]

Those calling for his prosecution are saying he doesn't have that right. You don't get prosecuted for doing something you have the right to do, therefore they're clearly saying he didn't have the right to defend himself because his gun wasn't registered with the state.

except, as much as I disagree with it, he has NO RIGHT to have an unregistered gun.

In New York City.

Take that shotgun out of the city limits, and he doesn't have to have it registered in NY State.

hmm. I don't see why NYC's gun rights are different from new york state's.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course the man has the right to defend himself from criminals, where has anyone argued that in this thread?

Those calling for his prosecution are saying he doesn't have that right. You don't get prosecuted for doing something you have the right to do, therefore they're clearly saying he didn't have the right to defend himself because his gun wasn't registered with the state.

except, as much as I disagree with it, he has NO RIGHT to have an unregistered gun.

Only according to positive law. The natural law says we have the right to defend ourselves from attack, and whether or not a weapon is registered with the state makes no difference whatsoever.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

except, as much as I disagree with it, he has NO RIGHT to have an unregistered gun.

In New York City.

Take that shotgun out of the city limits, and he doesn't have to have it registered in NY State.

hmm. I don't see why NYC's gun rights are different from new york state's.

Because the city has stricter laws than the state.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where in this thread have I stated, that the store owner did not have the right to defend himself and his property? I haven't stated any such thing and I challenge you to link to any post stating such.

You have been making an emotional appeal. You have no worthy retort. If you did, you would have presented it.

You have contradicted yourself once again in this post Kevin. Either you believe the Constitution should be properly followed or you don't. Telling me you agree with the proper interpretation and adjudication of the II Amendment in one breath, while saying the law is unjust when the people have exercise their rights, is in fact a contradiction made by you.

Just because I don't agree with gun restriction laws, that does not mean that they are in fact unjust nor does it mean that I am stating that one does not have the right to defend themselves and their property.

Pick a side and stick to it Kevin. You can't play both fields and expect to have solid footing. You have no valid legal argument. What is left?

You claim the law is not unjust, and that this man broke the law. Therefore, you're saying that this man unjustly defended himself in violation of the law. That means you do not recognize his natural right to defend himself as superior to the positive law that says he can't.

It's not the defending himself that is illegal. It is the unregistered gun which is illegal. so he should be fined for the unregistered gun, but should receive no punishment for the self defense.

So since the weapon he had to defend himself with was unregistered it was unlawful for him to defend himself with it.

 

[elvis]

Those calling for his prosecution are saying he doesn't have that right. You don't get prosecuted for doing something you have the right to do, therefore they're clearly saying he didn't have the right to defend himself because his gun wasn't registered with the state.

except, as much as I disagree with it, he has NO RIGHT to have an unregistered gun.

Only according to positive law. The natural law says we have the right to defend ourselves from attack, and whether or not a weapon is registered with the state makes no difference whatsoever.

one more time. He had EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN THE SITUATION. The only crime was having an unregistered gun.

 

[elvis]

You claim the law is not unjust, and that this man broke the law. Therefore, you're saying that this man unjustly defended himself in violation of the law. That means you do not recognize his natural right to defend himself as superior to the positive law that says he can't.

It's not the defending himself that is illegal. It is the unregistered gun which is illegal. so he should be fined for the unregistered gun, but should receive no punishment for the self defense.

So since the weapon he had to defend himself with was unregistered it was unlawful for him to defend himself with it.

read post #128.

 

[elvis]

In New York City.

Take that shotgun out of the city limits, and he doesn't have to have it registered in NY State.

hmm. I don't see why NYC's gun rights are different from new york state's.

Because the city has stricter laws than the state.

Shouldn't be that way. Someone in Buffalo should have the same gun rights as someone in NYC.

 

[Soaring]

The state of New York does not require the registration of a shotgun, but the city of New York does. That is where New York City is FUBAR, and this old man can win this case easily because the city of New York does not have the legal right to pass gun legislation that is reserved for the States.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

except, as much as I disagree with it, he has NO RIGHT to have an unregistered gun.

Only according to positive law. The natural law says we have the right to defend ourselves from attack, and whether or not a weapon is registered with the state makes no difference whatsoever.

one more time. He had EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN THE SITUATION. The only crime was having an unregistered gun.

His form of self-defense was an unregistered gun he, according to the law, had no right to have. Had he not had that gun what would he have defended himself with? It's likely that he simply would have been a victim.

 

[elvis]

Only according to positive law. The natural law says we have the right to defend ourselves from attack, and whether or not a weapon is registered with the state makes no difference whatsoever.

one more time. He had EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN THE SITUATION. The only crime was having an unregistered gun.

His form of self-defense was an unregistered gun he, according to the law, had no right to have. Had he not had that gun what would he have defended himself with? It's likely that he simply would have been a victim.

He had the right to defend himself with the unregistered gun. (one issue)

He should pay a fine for owning an unregistered gun, if in fact, the law requires it. (second issue)

You are putting words in my mouth because you don't like the fact that I think we should obey laws we don't agree with.

 

[tigerbob]

No, because the law he broke is unjust in the first place. Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead. Any law that makes it illegal to defend yourself, your property, and other innocent people is unjust and needs to go immediately.

Who cares if you think a law is unjust? If you think it's unjust, petiton your representatvies to change it.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what laws you observe and what laws you don't.

I don't live in New York, so it's not for me to try and change their system. Though pointing out why it's unjust is my choice.

What?

Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead.

You're saying if he hadn't broken the law he would probably be dead. That would only be true if gum ownership was illegal.

 

[Soaring]

The law in question here is an illegal law to begin with. The city of New York has no legal right to require registration of shotguns. If you disagree, show me your proof.

 

[elvis]

The law in question here is an illegal law to begin with. The city of New York has no legal right to require registration of shotguns. If you disagree, show me your proof.

If the laws are different for Buffalo or Albany than for NYC, then I would agree. Sounds insane.

 

[Soaring]

The law in question here is an illegal law to begin with. The city of New York has no legal right to require registration of shotguns. If you disagree, show me your proof.

If the laws are different for Buffalo or Albany than for NYC, then I would agree. Sounds insane.

They are.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The law in question here is an illegal law to begin with. The city of New York has no legal right to require registration of shotguns. If you disagree, show me your proof.

If the laws are different for Buffalo or Albany than for NYC, then I would agree. Sounds insane.

Actually we don't know what the various New York towns and cities have as laws. We only know that NY State and NYC have different gun laws.

 

[elvis]

The law in question here is an illegal law to begin with. The city of New York has no legal right to require registration of shotguns. If you disagree, show me your proof.

If the laws are different for Buffalo or Albany than for NYC, then I would agree. Sounds insane.

Actually we don't know what the various New York towns and cities have as laws. We only know that NY State and NYC have different gun laws.

yeah, ok. Still shouldn't be that way.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

If the laws are different for Buffalo or Albany than for NYC, then I would agree. Sounds insane.

Actually we don't know what the various New York towns and cities have as laws. We only know that NY State and NYC have different gun laws.

yeah, ok. Still shouldn't be that way.

I'm with ya.... But not sure if cities can make laws that supersede state laws. They might can, it's a city ordinance. Jillian, being the high-powered lawyer for over 20 years, might know.