Judge Tolby's response to all those letters (and one citizen's response)

From: JudgeTolby@aol.com
To: (addresses omitted)
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 2:11 PM
Subject: Reply to Republic Article on Guns

Dear Reader,

Due to the very large amount of responses to my column, I will write a generic reply and hope it answers the majority of the concerns.

I am sorry that some of you misinterpreted the column. I could have used a better word than " disagreed with the defendant" and used "disbelieved the defendant".

The issue is not if you can carry a concealed weapon in a holster in an automobile. The law allows you to do that. The issue before the court was whom do you believe. The officer testified the gun was under some papers on the seat. The defendant said the gun was in a holster in a crack in the seat and that the holster must have stayed in the crack when the gun was removed. From a totality of the evidence presented in court and in judging the creditability of the witness I did not believe the defendant's story.

I follow the laws of the State of Arizona mandated by the legislature and I personally do not challenge your right to carry a gun. But only wanted to point out that time after time I see what I call good hard working, honest people, that in a state of fear or anger, make very bad decisions with a gun.

Judge Tolby

From: maldonado & dowdy <mailto:maldow@az.rmci.net>
To: JudgeTolby@aol.com (other addresses omitted)
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Reply to Republic Article on Guns

Your Honor:

I agree. Some (very few) people, in a state of fear or anger, make very bad decisions with a gun... such as attacking others without justification. That is precisely why the Second Amendment affirms our right to use deadly force when attacked with dangerous weapons, if we are not able to move away from the threat. The typical, law-abiding, peaceful citizen will not react violently to a traffic situation...but I guarantee that he or she is not ready to be slaughtered by a deranged driver, either.

There is nothing unmanly for a judge to admit he was wrong, and rectify a situation by reversing his own opinion, which I think you should do in the case in question. In addition, you should publish a retraction - not a wordy collection of doublespeak - admitting that the driver was, indeed, legally in possession of a handgun in his vehicle.

Believe me, Your Honor, there are more gun owners out there than gun haters - and WE VOTE!

Respectfully,

J-P. A. Maldonado
Phoenix, AZ

To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.