Prosecutors have dropped charges against an 80-year-old tavern owner who shot a home burglar last week. "I feel great, but I still don't appreciate them taking my weapon," he said.
If a convict, he may not be able to legally own a gun. However, his wife can.
A Saiga 12 with a ten round drum would be a good choice.
Us “tree honkies” out in the burbs would get no such breaks, but as I’ve said before, good for him.
I’m sorry but this gun is guilty of a heinous crime.
But the 80-year-old tavern owner in Englewood is upset they did not return the .38-caliber pistol he used to shoot the intruder in the leg.
"I still don't appreciate them taking my weapon because I need one," Wright said. "You, me or anybody else should be able to have some kind of protection. You have to be able to take care of yourself."
Wright said he has been "left to the wolves" and will use his baseball bat for protection -- for now. He said he will not go searching for another gun, but will buy one if he gets the chance.
Wright was charged with unlawful use of a weapon because he had been convicted in the past of weapons charges and is not allowed to own a gun. Prosecutors defended the charge, but announced in court early this morning that they were dismissing it. They gave no explanation.
Keep in mind this guy is a felon and cannot own a gun. He's on record stating that he'll buy one "if he gets the chance.
Why don’t these journalist a-holes write these stories the same assinine way they do with cars? “A car drove into...” Why not “A gun went off hitting an alleged burglar...”
I mean if you don’t want to get sued for wording, be effing consistent you liberal-assed wordsmiths. A person was behind the wheel just like a person was holding the gun. Just effing moronic hypocrite inconsistent-when-it-goes-against-the-agenda libtards.
I don’t know who keeps the banglist, but this may be of interest to you.