“The more the protection of the constitutional right to carry is mentioned, the more it is accepted in judicial circles.”
____
About time!
In this case, I disagree with the judge, because the axiom under consideration is flawed. This was never a 2nd Amendment issue.
Burglary is usually distinguished from Robbery because a robber is armed. The only expectation that Dickens *might* have was that they were engaged in unarmed burglary, and thus the risk and liability for death is *lower*.
But this was not the case, as he knew that his accomplice was armed. That he was known for carrying guns is irrelevant, as is his being known as a violent juvenile.
So the rule is clear. All the accomplices to a crime are responsible to the maximum degree for *all* crimes committed by the group.
The rationale for this, among other things, is to prevent criminals from thinking that they should have a juvenile accomplice do the “dirty work”, with only them being charged as a juvenile, the adult getting away with it.
Don’t know a thing about this case but it looks like Reinhardt is trying to use the 2nd Amendment to keep this turkey from the death penalty.
Reinhardt is probably the most commie leftist gun grabbing judge in the 9th Circus and that’s saying a lot.
excerpt from a 2002 two decision:
“Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the 72-page decision as a brief for his assertion in the summary that “the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.”
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-925.html
-PJ