Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 11 months ago
    A reasonable decision: I see no reason why he shouldn't be entitled to sell the guns for what he can get on the open market. The conviction demands that he may not possess firearms but doesn't say he must be deprived of the value of them. He should be able to sell them, give them away or destroy them... If the state demands that he not possess them and confiscates them, he must be compensated unless the value is a fine/part specified in the sentence. Suppose the guy had one gun or hundreds... a few hundred dollars worth or thousands...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 11 months ago
    Charged with distributing marijuana. Anyone want to bet that the real offense they went after was that he owned guns?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 11 months ago
      Reuters says that Tony Henderson is a Florida
      border patrol agent for DHS. . does FL rank up there
      with the gun-confiscation governments? -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 11 months ago
        Florida is like four separate countries. North Florida is like a southern US state. Central Florida (where I live) is pleasant and fairly representative of the US as a whole. South Florida, particularly Palm Beach, Broward (Ft. Lauderdale), and Dade (Miami) counties is like no place else in the world in several ways, but is definitely more "progressive" than the rest of the state. Finally, there are the Keys.

        Where there is gun confiscation in Florida, it is mostly a local or county-wide phenomenon. My county is not afraid of guns and has the Police Hall of Fame, in addition to the space launches.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by SaltyDog 8 years, 11 months ago
    God help us if rulings are made over what one 'might' do. A VERY slippery slope to say the least.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 11 months ago
      seems to be predicated by his being "a convicted
      felon." -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by SaltyDog 8 years, 11 months ago
        From the standpoint of who currently owns the guns, yes. However, the judges ruling seems to be that if the gun is sold to some guy that he knows, that guy 'might' let the first guy control the gun. If we take that out a step further, if the gun was sold to some guy that he doesn't know from Adam, in theory, that guy might let him control the gun too.

        I don't know what an Objectivist would think of the reasoning, but I fear a court or by extension a government that believes that it can make prior restraint work. At that point, as far as I'm concerned, all bets are off. Do you see where I'm coming from?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 11 months ago
          prior restraint, like prohibitions of things before they
          occur? . censorship is the activity which comes up
          first in wikipedia, but laws against bad things are all
          over. . the slope is the convoluted thinking that any
          receiver of his guns could get them back to him in
          some strange way. . maybe it's overreach. . this
          is the kind of thing which amounts to legislation
          from the bench, and it sucks. . I think I got it. -- j
          .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo