|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/26/2016)
|
| Prosecutors have discretion. They can decline to prosecute, regardless of the law. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/26/2016)
|
This would have been completely legal in Texas.
Apparently, you cannot pursue and shoot someone in Colorado after the threat has been removed.
This being a suburb of Denver, the guy is probably toast. Outside of the greater Denver liberal enclave, he would probably find a sympathetic prosecutor, grand jury, and jury. |
| Comment by:
lostone1413
(1/26/2016)
|
| Must be a part of CO. that has been over run by transplants from the land of nuts and fruitcakes |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
