It seems silly that one would press the unwilling public just to enter a property with the ability to protect themselves. At the base of the argument is a law where the armed one takes all liability, the property owner has no responsibility for anyone’s safety if self defense becomes necessary.
Police are provided with legal aid, not a public defender, a good layer; and, at the cost of tax payers when self defense of any type is used. You will be locked up; and in time, you’ll get a defense of convenience in an expedited manner. Get a good lawyer, and the DA will break you just to prove a point.
Unlike our foe, we care, and in that lies the problem. We stand to loose everything if we act, and everything if we don’t. Not a statement of purpose; but, a question of concern that ponders liberty, or liability, a right, or a wrong. I know what I’ll do, and the price I stand to pay, that’s me. This has to be the first thing you put on, and can never be taken off as long as you choose to be a vigilant carrier.
Boar out.
Police are provided with legal aid, not a public defender, a good layer; and, at the cost of tax payers when self defense of any type is used. You will be locked up; and in time, you’ll get a defense of convenience in an expedited manner. Get a good lawyer, and the DA will break you just to prove a point.
Unlike our foe, we care, and in that lies the problem. We stand to loose everything if we act, and everything if we don’t. Not a statement of purpose; but, a question of concern that ponders liberty, or liability, a right, or a wrong. I know what I’ll do, and the price I stand to pay, that’s me. This has to be the first thing you put on, and can never be taken off as long as you choose to be a vigilant carrier.
Boar out.
Last edited:
