Actually, you’re referring to one specific instance of the doctrine, your blatant attempt to color the doctrine as Television-esque is quite funny. That’s a “Make My Day” law, not Castle Doctrine.
A-swing-'n-a-miss. Try again.
Damn!
- rolls shoulders, sets feet, prepares bat *
Do you have ‘time-outs’ in baseball? It’s late over here!
For those unfamiliar with Ivan, he believes that it is the home owner’s responsibilty to lock his house in such a way as to make it reasonably impregnable to burglary, else it is his fault when things get stolen, in addition to being heavily anti-gun.
I believe a specific example given was having, at the least, a home security system as well as locked doors and windows. Otherwise? Your own fault.
He also has this tendency to make discussions about himself. It may be worthwhile to consider that, Mr. Moto.
Was it me who brought me up in this thread?
You are not only barking up the wrong tree, you are in the wrong forest.
I’m terrified of it happening in the same way I’m terrified of a fire or a flat tire. Therefore I have a fire extinguisher and a spare tire. I do not particularly want to shoot anyone, but if some moron breaks into my house, they are the ones deciding that my stuff is worth risking their life over.
Damn, I forgot all about that thread! An ex-burgler that’s opposed to self protection for his victims, how unusual.
I have 2 fuzzy burglar alarms and a .45 caliber theft deterrent system. Ivan probably did far better breaking into homes in England than he would around here.
Never said that! I said people would do better investing in securing their homes, than stocking up on hardware and ammo.
Well, I will secure my home as I see fit. Here in America we still have that right, as opposed to some other places I can name.
The first two firearms I owned were two .38 Special revolvers I won on a $5 raffle ticket. The raffle guy insisted we record the transaction with a licensed firearms dealer. Many years later, I sold both of them to a friend for $90. No record exists of that. A week later, he sold them to another guy. No paperwork. Less than a week later, that guy was fooling around, cocking and uncocking one of the revolvers and shot himself in the leg.:rolleyes: I assume he went to a doctor or a hospital, who was required to report all gunshot wounds.
I waited for the “inevitable” police visit, for I was the last official owner. Nobody came to call.
Right now, I own a .22 rifle and a pistol, both registered to me. I bought them new. I also have another rifle that was given to me by a friend who has since died, and another pistol that I traded a guitar amplifier for. On paper, neither belongs to me. I’m not the kind of guy who holds up 7-11s, so none of that will likely ever matter.
I have a .22 Ruger Mk.II pistol. I used to have an idiot roommate. Idiot Roommate ‘accidentally’ removed the pistol from the apartment. (His explanation: He hid it in a box so his visiting five-year-old daughter wouldn’t find it, forgot it was in the box, loaded the box with laundry, and put the box in his trunk.) His car was searched by police and they found the gun.
Bear in mind that this pistol had been purchased in California. In California firearms must be registered with the Department of Justice. Supposedly, registrations for long-arms are not kept; but registrations for handguns are.
Would anyone like to guess who was NOT notified a pistol was seized by police?
(Yes, I got it back. It took me six weeks once Idiot Roommate 'fessed up.)
You could also get in a bad wreck and die a horribly violent death due to speeding. But I’m willing to bet that if you drive you probably speed.
People take risks for convenience quite regularly. In the grand scheme of things your chances of being convicted of a crime you didn’t commit based solely on the fact that a gun you once owned was used in the crime has to be filed away under the long list of “risks in life that aren’t worth worrying about.” Right up there with slipping and falling to your death in the shower.
I’m no lawyer but I’d be shocked if you could come up with one case in which an innocent person was convicted of a crime based on a firearm they had previously sold.
So you are in favor of people protecting their homes with firearms? That’s refreshing. I apologize for my earlier remarks, as I was unaware you are pro-gun.
Not quite. Every *transfer *has to be through a dealer and recorded with the DoJ.
But handguns pre-law* do not have to be registered, until they are transfered. This is why you got the gun back
So my hypothetical Widow Smith would not have to register her late husband’s .38 if he had died pre-Law. But if he died post-law, she’d have to “register” it as that would be a “transfer”.:rolleyes:
- and I don’t remember when the law came in, the 1980’s?
