Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Only in NYC: Self Defense Shooting’s Female Survivor Charged

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    35,351

    Only in NYC: Self Defense Shooting’s Female Survivor Charged

    ".....we tend to see a great deal of bizarre and backward behavior permeating the cultures on the coast, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment, and particularly in the narrow-minded, left-centric collection of boroughs known as New York City.

    That’s why it’s almost expected that a woman who shot an attacker in an undeniable act of self defense has been arrested."

    https://keepandbear.com/news/nyc-sel...vivor-charged/
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  2. #2
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,609
    uh grape, not saying this event isn’t true or didn’t actually occur as reported back on 31 dec 17 in new york city as reported initially by the Daily News, ( http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3729315 ) then promoted by Ammoland ( https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/wom...#axzz58rylLBuW ) on the 28th of Feb 2018, then immediately pushed by several other ‘gun’ focused blogs, but...

    you might wish to review the Daily News’s content and you will notice the similarity to other tabloids of questionable newsworthy articles! http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...lery-1.3732896
    I cannot allow your ignorance, however great, to take precedence over my knowledge, however small. Bacon’s great-grandson.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    35,351
    Don't shoot the messenger.

    I provided the link for others to review and comment. It is not that old an event and fits what many would expect from NYC.
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,837
    All she has to do is rely on Heller.

    Most don't catch this little tidbit in Heller.
    District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 2788, 2797
    Part II “We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment.”
    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause.
    Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”
    Go read it for yourself.

    And I don't think anyone has ever used it in their defence. This is a finding of the court. License to poses a firearm is unconstitutional, in the home or out on the street, period.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,014
    I would throw Caetano in there to.

    On 21 March of 2016, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable and, apparently to the Court, non-controversial decision. In the Caetano PER CURIAM decision (pdf), the Court held that:

    The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).
    While the decision, which was unanimous, has far reaching implication beyond mere stun guns, stun gun bans have already started falling like dominoes
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  6. #6
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    All she has to do is rely on Heller.

    Most don't catch this little tidbit in Heller.
    District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 2788, 2797
    Part II “We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment.”


    Go read it for yourself.

    And I don't think anyone has ever used it in their defence. This is a finding of the court. License to poses a firearm is unconstitutional, in the home or out on the street, period.
    good luck
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,837
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    Originally Posted by color of law
    All she has to do is rely on Heller.

    Most don't catch this little tidbit in Heller.
    District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 2788, 2797
    Part II “We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment.”


    Go read it for yourself.

    And I don't think anyone has ever used it in their defence. This is a finding of the court. License to poses a firearm is unconstitutional, in the home or out on the street, period.


    good luck
    In Florida, you're correct.

    The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution.

    This was clarified and confirmed in 2008, when the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

    More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed,’” id. The Court reiterated at page 613, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

    Now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)) they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms in case of confrontation.

    Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •