Replies

Ya know, pete, maybe they just don't want the test case to be about a man who may have been beating up or trying to kill his wife. Maybe they are waiting for a better case than one which would defend the right to arm wife beaters.

BTW, this article says it was a Beretta pistol. I don't know from pistols, all I know is Beretta semi-automatic. Do you think he had a pistol? or that the writer got it wrong?

"BTW, this article says it was a Beretta pistol. I don't know from pistols, all I know is Beretta semi-automatic. Do you think he had a pistol? or that the writer got it wrong?"

The pistol that was used was a Berretta 92, a 9MM. The military calls it the M9. The government adopted it after the Colt 1911A1 .45.

One of the points that was made during the proceedings was that he used the very pistol that the government or a militia would use.

Ya know, pete, maybe they just don't want the test case to be about a man who may have been beating up or trying to kill his wife.

He was doing neither. He just got caught up in this mandatory federal gun confiscation scheme. His wife and her lawyer were just trying to bust his **^^'s,so this siced the feds on him because he had a gun. The way this law works,ALL that is neccessary to have the cops come confiscate your guns if for your spouse to say she or he is afraid of you,and that you have guns. No threat or act of violence is neccessary. It's almost automatic for divorce lawyers do this now,since it gives them one more "tool" to use in court against the spouse of their client. They stand up and say,"You honor,this man is so dangerous and his wife so afraid of him,that we had to have the police go to his house to confiscate his guns and arrest him!" Some women and their lawyers have even gone so far with husbands who are gun collectors to threaten to do this unless she is paid 50% of the guns estimated worth.

Maybe they are waiting for a better case than one which would defend the right to arm wife beaters.

You are letting your knee-jerk biases overpower your common sense. I can think of no better case than one where the person has been arrested,had his Constitutional rights violated, and had his property confiscated without him ever being found guilty of anything.

BTW,let's suppose for a minute he HAD beaten his wife at one time or another. Would you want his steak knives and his car confiscated and him arrested for having them? He could easily kill his wife with either. How about have him arrested for buying gasoline becuase he COULD use it to burn her house down or make a bomb? In this country we are not supposed to punish people for what they MIGHT do,but for what they actually do.

BTW, this article says it was a Beretta pistol. I don't know from pistols, all I know is Beretta semi-automatic. Do you think he had a pistol? or that the writer got it wrong?

No,he had a Beretta pistol. Nothing special about them,they are now the standard sidearm of the US military. Is it possible you are confusing semi-automatic (self-loading single shot) with full-automatic (machine gun)?