Gun Control

[Archy1221]

Kinda hard to when the end result of those policies is to disenfranchise voters

All eligible voters are still eligible to vote.  I kinda don’t believe anyone’s right to vote was taken away or that legally cast votes will be actively taken away with any legislation proposed.  

 

[knapplc]

All eligible voters are still eligible to vote.  

Not really the point.

 

[Archy1221]

those policies is to disenfranchise voters.

Disenfranchise:  deprive (someone) of the right to vote.

All eligible voters are still eligible to vote

Not really the point

 

[knapplc]

Disenfranchise:  deprive (someone) of the right to vote.

Not going to play word games with you. Go take it up with the world of journalism who uses this term for what Republicans are doing with voting rights.

Toodle-oo!

 

[Archy1221]

Not going to play word games with you. Go take it up with the world of journalism who uses this term for what Republicans are doing with voting rights.

Toodle-oo!

 

[BigRedBuster]

Idiot.  I wish idiots like this would realize their actions do nothing to further neither the cause of gun ownership nor the cause of stopping mass shootings.

 

[Cdog923]

 

[commando]

Idiot.  I wish idiots like this would realize their actions do nothing to further neither the cause of gun ownership nor the cause of stopping mass shootings.

story says 5 guns....unless i forgot how to count or maybe the revolver or shotgun doesn't count....but i see 6 guns in the photo

 

[funhusker]

Idiot.  I wish idiots like this would realize their actions do nothing to further neither the cause of gun ownership nor the cause of stopping mass shootings.

He's lucky a "good guy" with a gun didn't see him walking in and put a bullet in his a$$.

 

[knapplc]

Idiot.  I wish idiots like this would realize their actions do nothing to further neither the cause of gun ownership nor the cause of stopping mass shootings.

I agree the guy is an idiot, but... why isn't he legally allowed to do this? 

 

[funhusker]

I agree the guy is an idiot, but... why isn't he legally allowed to do this? 

I'm sure someone, somewhere, will argue that he is.  

 

[knapplc]

I'm sure someone, somewhere, will argue that he is.  

Without knowing the legalities of that locale I can't be certain, but if he's living in an open-carry jurisdiction, I don't see what he did wrong *.

Maybe the store has rules against firearms, but that doesn't make him guilty of "reckless conduct," more like trespassing or something. 

* legally, that is. Of course I think the guy's a nut and this kind of thing should not be legal. 

 

[funhusker]

Without knowing the legalities of that locale I can't be certain, but if he's living in an open-carry jurisdiction, I don't see what he did wrong *.

Maybe the store has rules against firearms, but that doesn't make him guilty of "reckless conduct," more like trespassing or something. 

* legally, that is. Of course I think the guy's a nut and this kind of thing should not be legal. 

According to the article, as long as he had a proper license it is legal to carry guns in public.  I think the only reason they could arrest him is for the pretty obvious threat that people would reasonably perceive.

He's going through psychological evaluation.  If he is deemed with a "sound mind" I wouldn't be surprised if he walks away from this.  It's stupid!  A person with a "sound mind" doesn't do this...

 

[Enhance]

Maybe the store has rules against firearms, but that doesn't make him guilty of "reckless conduct," more like trespassing or something. 

This looks like a criminal defense site, but it gives an explanation of Georgia's law.

You’ve heard it before. You should know better. In Georgia it is not a relic of childhood. Certain actions, when one knew or should have known of the consequences, constitute a crime.

Georgia code § 16-5-60 covers reckless conduct, which is causing harm to or endangering the bodily safety of another and is punishable as a misdemeanor. For a charge of reckless conduct the court will ask “whether a person who caused bodily harm to or endangered the bodily safety of another person by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission would cause harm or endanger the safety of the other person and the disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation."

Summed up this means, “Did you know of the possible harm and do it anyway, when it was clear to a reasonable person that someone would or could get hurt?”

So, totally a guess on my part, but my assumption is they would argue that strolling into a public grocery story with five weapons is like a 'you should've known better' kind of thing?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Without knowing the legalities of that locale I can't be certain, but if he's living in an open-carry jurisdiction, I don't see what he did wrong *.

Maybe the store has rules against firearms, but that doesn't make him guilty of "reckless conduct," more like trespassing or something. 

* legally, that is. Of course I think the guy's a nut and this kind of thing should not be legal. 

This falls in line with my questions every time someone is arrested for something like domestic assault or drug charges and when the police come, they also charge the person with fire arms violations and list the many guns found in the home.  Not sure what grounds those are always done on.