Armed homeowner who defended family in driveway shoot-out says he's been stripped of

Geeko Sportivo said:
I am already suspecting Foul Play! And I bet the Police are as well, and is the reason why they temporarily suspending his Carry License!

If you watch the video, some things do not make any sense. To me, the entire thing looked staged. Like something you would see in a Hollywood Hero Movie.

We do not know the history of this homeowner. But the police do, as he has been seen on Fox News several times now, after this incident.

And he has told Fox News this story about his home being recently robbed, and as he told it, everything in his house of any value was taken in the recent robbery.

Well, if that is true, then the L.A. Police were already investigating that crime, and they may have suspicions that he may have been scamming his insurance company by staging that crime scene, and falsely reporting that as a crime, as well.

I do not have enough information to know if he staged the incidents or not, or if this is even an issue, BUT THE POLICE MAY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO SUSPECT BOTH ALLEGED CRIMES WERE STAGED AND A PUBLICITY STUNT!

I'll wait to hear back from the L.A. Police Department after they have investigated these alleged crimes.
Click to expand...
unless the police actually indict him they have no right to pull his CCW
 
ExpressLane said:
unless the police actually indict him they have no right to pull his CCW
Click to expand...

Who told you that?

I bet there are plenty of reasons why the police would revoke a CCW.

The possession of a license to carry a concealed weapon is subject to revocation by either the Sheriff or the California Attorney General's Office when licensees are found to be in violation of policy or legal statutes. The possession of a license to carry a concealed weapon does not exempt any individual from criminal prosecution or civil liability, other than the act of carrying the specific firearm(s) within the State of California. The issuance of a license to carry a concealed weapon does not excuse or justify any behavior that might otherwise be a violation of any law pertaining to weapons. The Sheriff may place restrictions on any license that the Sheriff deems warranted. The restrictions may include the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the licensee may carry the weapon.

If you have any questions, please call (408) 808-4942 or e-mail the Sheriff's Office CCW mailbox.
 
Last edited:
imagine a story where a women uses her cell phone to call the cops because of domestic violence and they come out and take her phone away
 
ExpressLane said:
unless the police actually indict him they have no right to pull his CCW
Click to expand...
1. It's California, Herr Doktor.

2. It appears that something is amiss with Ricci's compliance. He's free to take it to court and have all the evidence revealed...or he can just go on Fox and scream about it. https://news.yahoo.com/california-nonprofit-founder-caught-shootout-091909683.html
"The Department of Justice (DOJ) establishes guidelines for CCW permits and the Sheriff’s Department must follow the DOJ parameters in accordance with the law."

3. He still has all of his guns. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...mself-with-concealed-carry-weapon/ar-AA1jtYuN
"In California, a person must be at least 18 years old to buy a shotgun or rifle and at least 21 years old to buy a handgun. The purchaser must also pass a background check"
 
Uncensored2008 said:
You are an echo of the various anti-civil liberties blogs. HGI, Everytown, Gifford, et al.

The problem is that you have so little knowledge of the facts that you read some idiocy on these hate sites, then repeat it out of context never understanding that the source was disingenuous leaving what you post sheer idiocy.

The Americans have a problem. They are on the "wrong" side of abortion. It's a loser at the polls for them. Contrast that with your Reich, which has its own problem with civil rights. Opposing abortion hurts the GOP, opposing civil rights hurts the fascist democrats.

You are solidly on the wrong side of the right to defend one's life and property - you are opposed by the overwhelming majority of the public. Your Reich is solidly pro-criminal and at the same time trying to disarm the victims.

I urge you to continue to ignorantly push this agenda.
Click to expand...

Odd that nothing about that right to defend rights and property appears anywhere in the Constitution. Nor that the so-called right requires a gun. Why don’t you point that out for the forum?

We’ll wait, Einstooge.
 
ExpressLane said:
Yep Heller was a lose for the gun grabbers
Click to expand...

Nope, not really. All Heller said was that you have a personal right to possess a weapon in the home for personal defense. That’s about it. It was silent about concealed carry and other issues you stupid fucks are ignorant about.

Scalia, writing for the majority, also said that other restrictions are permissible, including sale, manufacture and transport. That the 2nd is not absolute. He said Heller does not give you permission to possess any gun, anywhere, or anytime.

So, you stupid fucks think Heller was some monumental ball breaker for gun restrictions. It wasn’t. But, whatever floats your ignorant ass, I guess.
 
domer76 said:
Odd that nothing about that right to defend rights and property appears anywhere in the Constitution. Nor that the so-called right requires a gun. Why don’t you point that out for the forum?

We’ll wait, Einstooge.
Click to expand...

The Constitution limits the federal government, not citizens. It's the authoritarian assholes who seek to use the Constitution to strip Americans of their rights on whom to marry, what they can do with their own bodies, and other such encroachments of individual rights.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-c...laration-of-independence-through-history.html
For nearly two centuries the Supreme Court has invoked the Declaration of Independence. Much of that time, it has used the Declaration to define the meaning of racial equality...

...The continued historical and Supreme Court uses of the Declaration's language go to show that the rhetoric of the American Revolution remains very powerful in our national discourse.
 
Doc Dutch said:
The Constitution limits the federal government, not citizens. It's the authoritarian assholes who seek to use the Constitution to strip Americans of their rights on whom to marry, what they can do with their own bodies, and other such encroachments of individual rights.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-c...laration-of-independence-through-history.html
For nearly two centuries the Supreme Court has invoked the Declaration of Independence. Much of that time, it has used the Declaration to define the meaning of racial equality...

...The continued historical and Supreme Court uses of the Declaration's language go to show that the rhetoric of the American Revolution remains very powerful in our national discourse.
Click to expand...

You quoted the Declaration, not the Constitution. And SCOTUS has rarely, if ever, cited the Declaration as an authority for its decisions.
 
domer76 said:
You quoted the Declaration, not the Constitution. And SCOTUS has rarely, if ever, invoked the Declaration for case law.
Click to expand...
^^^
Didn't read the references. Selective blindness?

I'm not a lawyer which is why I quote legal websites. You're free to your opinions, Domer.
 
Doc Dutch said:
^^^
Didn't read the references. Selective blindness?

I'm not a lawyer which is why I quote legal websites. You're free to your opinions, Domer.
Click to expand...

Look, pal, I’m trying to give you a little instruction in what the Constitution and the BOR ACTUALLY say.

The Declaration IS NOT LAW and, to my knowledge, has never been cited as an authority for a SCOTUS decision. That’s because it is just a DECLARATION and not a legal document. Get it?

Now, neither the Constitution nor BOR says anything about a right to life or the requirement of a gun to do so.

The law regarding “bearing arms” in this country, going back to the Articles of Confederation, are in the context of militias. ALWAYS. Madison wrote the 2nd, right? He should know what the intent was, don’t you think? Well, HIS wording was this:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

See that conscientious objector clause? Know what that means? It means you cannot be forced to bear arms, as part of that militia, if your religion tells you otherwise. Know why he put that little gem in there? Because Pennsylvania was a big fucking state with influence and had a lot of Quakers.

If you did any homework on the BOR, you’d know it was nothing more than an afterthought to get the anti-Federalists on board to ratify the Constitution. It was either toss that in or risk another Constitutional Convention, which they had no energy for. The original BOR are NOT amendments. They amend nothing in the Constitution.
 
domer76 said:
Look, pal, I’m trying to give you a little instruction in what the Constitution and the BOR ACTUALLY say.

The Declaration IS NOT LAW and, to my knowledge, has never been cited as an authority for a SCOTUS decision. That’s because it is just a DECLARATION and not a legal document. Get it?

Now, neither the Constitution nor BOR says anything about a right to life or the requirement of a gun to do so.

The law regarding “bearing arms” in this country, going back to the Articles of Confederation, are in the context of militias. ALWAYS. Madison wrote the 2nd, right? He should know what the intent was, don’t you think? Well, HIS wording was this:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

See that conscientious objector clause? Know what that means? It means you cannot be forced to bear arms, as part of that militia, if your religion tells you otherwise. Know why he put that little gem in there? Because Pennsylvania was a big fucking state with influence and had a lot of Quakers.

If you did any homework on the BOR, you’d know it was nothing more than an afterthought to get the anti-Federalists on board to ratify the Constitution. It was either toss that in or risk another Constitutional Convention, which they had no energy for. The original BOR are NOT amendments. They amend nothing in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
the 2nd amendment allowed citizens of the various states to have gun control laws

the 2nd only applied to the new federal government and not the states. Madison and all the founders were clear on this

the mess we are in is purely because of the civil war and how we could not and still do not agree on incorporation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top