|
|
|
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:
KY: Break-in prompts question: What are a homeowner’s self-defense rights?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A home invasion in Graves County has homeowners wondering what their rights are when protecting their homes.
Kentucky State Police investigators say a homeowner shot and killed 46-year-old Timothy Roper, who is accused of breaking into the home with two other people, beating and robbing the elderly homeowner.
The neighborhood where it happened is in Boaz, Kentucky. Lawrence Bermingham lives across from where the home off of McNeil Lane. He said the neighborhood used to be a peaceful place, which is why he moved there to retire. The neighborhood is shocked by the news of the break-in. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/9/2017)
|
"The break-in has multiple neighbors concerned about their safety and wondering what their rights are in protecting their homes."
The fact that there are Americans who are so naďve that they have to ask this question is disgusting.
“To be honest with you, I keep a gun by my night stand, and I plan to keep myself protected,” Bermingham said.
Which is good when you're in bed. You should keep it on your person, ready to go, ALL THE TIME. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
