Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Open carry?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Peacemaker" data-source="post: 1497065" data-attributes="member: 12095"><p>A relook at HB1647 since things are a little quiet at the moment..........</p><p></p><p>"6. When the person has a reasonable fear of bodily harm, if the person has filed an emergency protective order, or if a protective order has been granted by a district court; or"</p><p></p><p>Even with this Virgin amendment, me being a math major and understanding logic but not a lawyer, the three phrases should be considered separate and equal. I don't see any way that the protective order language has any effect on the fear of bodily harm phrase because in language and in math, when there is an or, they are three distinct situations not applying to one another.</p><p></p><p>Now, if they can add language in the Senate to ensure that the burden of proof for the "reasonable fear of bodily harm" is not upon the firearm carrier such that he is not susceptible to police harassment, then we could have a good bill, in my opinion. However, as we have seen, our current legislature finds a way to screw up everything that is meaningful for gun owners. As it is was originally written it was too ambiguous and the Virgin amendment just added doubt to the reasonable fear clause.</p><p></p><p>I would propose something like this:</p><p></p><p>"6. When the person has a reasonable fear of bodily harm, if the person has filed an emergency protective order, or if a protective order has been granted by a district court; <u>reasonable fear shall be in the discretion of the individual citizen in the normal course of lawful activities and shall not be defined by the state, local municipalities, or any law enforcement agencies nor shall a citizen be asked to present a reasonable fear</u>; or"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Peacemaker, post: 1497065, member: 12095"] A relook at HB1647 since things are a little quiet at the moment.......... "6. When the person has a reasonable fear of bodily harm, if the person has filed an emergency protective order, or if a protective order has been granted by a district court; or" Even with this Virgin amendment, me being a math major and understanding logic but not a lawyer, the three phrases should be considered separate and equal. I don't see any way that the protective order language has any effect on the fear of bodily harm phrase because in language and in math, when there is an or, they are three distinct situations not applying to one another. Now, if they can add language in the Senate to ensure that the burden of proof for the "reasonable fear of bodily harm" is not upon the firearm carrier such that he is not susceptible to police harassment, then we could have a good bill, in my opinion. However, as we have seen, our current legislature finds a way to screw up everything that is meaningful for gun owners. As it is was originally written it was too ambiguous and the Virgin amendment just added doubt to the reasonable fear clause. I would propose something like this: "6. When the person has a reasonable fear of bodily harm, if the person has filed an emergency protective order, or if a protective order has been granted by a district court; [U]reasonable fear shall be in the discretion of the individual citizen in the normal course of lawful activities and shall not be defined by the state, local municipalities, or any law enforcement agencies nor shall a citizen be asked to present a reasonable fear[/U]; or" [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Open carry?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom