From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the end as I said earlier you only preventing someone from owning
>firearms legally. You would not be allowed to express you opinions about
>someone who owned a firearm illegally as they would be a criminal and
>would therefore have rights!
Steve, & Andrew,
What an outstanding point!
The citizen has no 'rights' and thence must apply for permission
to exercise a 'liberty', yet the a criminal is subject to a trial in defense of
exercising a right.
It is the most inconsistent application of law: How is it that a
person is arrested and tried for a crime, and can plead the exercise of a
right, yet a person who is yet a non-criminal cannot make application to
exercise the right the criminal may appeal for?
--
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it.
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
ET
--
This is one thing that does nark me about the firearm
licensing system, you are guilty until proven innocent.
When I went to appeal the judge kept calling me the "defendant"
rather than the appellant which gives you some idea of their
mindset when you have the police one side and someone else
on the other. The assumption is that the police are always
the good guys and whomever they are against are the bad guys.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
