Retiree That Legally Defended Himself Sentenced to Prison in New York

[DBCowboy]

New York politicians and DA's have a track record of believing in "negative rights".

Retired 67-year old goes to prison after legally defending himself

That's right, after what was a clear case of self-defense, with a legal handgun against a career violent criminal, the New York DA's office indicted, tried, secured a conviction and sent a retiree to prison for 4 years.

The fearmongering and emotional pleading of the corrupt DA and complicit media is nauseating.

DA Press Release

Since the POS DA couldn't charge Charles Foehner in the self defense shooting of career criminal Cody Gonzalez, they managed to secure a search warrant for Foehner's private residence. Once there, it was discovered that Ol' Charley had the audacity to have a collection of firearms that he hadn't gone thru the trouble and expense to register and license, in violation of New Yorks unconstitutional anti-2A gun control laws.

When the legal system is used to punish the good and protect the evil, you have a tyranny.

What he did was illegal against the state law.  But if we're going to use this case as precedent, then every illegal should be deported, since no one is above the law.

[chr0naut]

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is clear by the writings of the people who enshrined it in our constitution.

Absolutely.

As explained in the Federalist papers, the 2nd was to ensure that there was balance between the multiple citizen militias of the individual States and a single massive Federal army. To hold the Federation back from becoming the one absolute power over the citizenry - to prevent a Federal tyranny.

Firearms can be deadly weapons. Vehicles can be deadly weapons. Medication can be a deadly weapon. A pressure cooker can be a deadly weapon. A sharpened pencil can be a deadly weapon.

Vehicles, Medications, pressure cookers and many other things were not conceived and constructed for a primary use as deadly weapons. That's the difference - intention of purpose.

None the less, it is good governance to ensure that stuff is as safe, and as fit for purpose, as is possible to achieve - even weapons.

The object has no intent, and as such it cannot decide what it is and what it isn't itself. The intention of the user is what decides that.

What??? Do you think that anyone is arguing that?

The 2nd amendment is not in any way ambiguous. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"The security of a free State, shall not be infringed (by a Federal tyranny)".

"A well regulated militia, shall not be infringed (by Federal control or ban against States raising their own armed militia)".

Both of these interpretations are at least supported by the in-depth details for the 2nd as discussed in the Federalist Papers.

It was less about the fact that Pretti possessed a firearm, and more about the actions he had taken while possessing a firearm. He did not really make any good decisions that day.

He did not shoot himself.

I get the impression that you don't really understand the history of the firearm in the US, or even around the world, nor the overwhelming firepower the US population has access to. And then you have to consider the fact that a not insignificant percentage of the US armed forces would refuse to fire on their own people and would subvert the plans of the government and/or directly sabotage their equipment.

Nah, I do.

All it takes, however, is one person, a thousand miles away, piloting a drone armed with cluster bombs, and all that firepower is totally useless. No-one can return fire because you won't even know where it is coming from.

They can rocket and shell you from over the horizon, and not many of them have to follow the illegal orders, either.

You see, there is history of US troops opening up upon their own citizens (The Whiskey Rebellion, The Civil War, The Ludlow Massacre, the Kent State shootings, Waco, Ruby Ridge, The New York City Draft Riots, The Detroit 12th Street Riots, The Newark Riots, The murder of Martin Luther King, The LA Riots, The Bonus Army), and there's very little history of conscientious objectors, who have tended to get imprisoned and executed for their efforts anyway.

[Thetruth]

**Mod. snip**

there is a strong consensus of opinion among a large portion of the population that new york's regulations are an unconstitutional infringement of the law, not valid laws in themselves

the opinion holds that it is the politically and ideologically motivated democrat majority in new york that are ignoring the law, the highest law of the constitution, when they find it expedient

thus making the statement "the law is the law" laughable, because local ordinances do not trump the constitution

the parallel was made to states and sanctuary cities choosing not to enforce federal immigration laws, which are also quite clear

i hope this clears things up for you and perhaps discharges some of the emotive rhetoric



Edit: for clarity, the "mod-snip" was a quote of a now-deleted post, not anything I said...

I thought you lot where all for state rights?

And the constitution? Don't make me laugh.  If you lot were so bothered  about the constitution  you would be screaming  bloody murder at Trump who wipes his arse with it everyday.

Americans and their silly boom boom sticks.

[UltraBudgie]

I thought you lot where all for state rights?

And the constitution? Don't make me laugh.  If you lot were so bothered  about the constitution  you would be screaming  bloody murder at Trump who wipes his arse with it everyday.

Americans and their silly boom boom sticks.

haha yes

i started of a little and now i am a lot

you were saying?

do you really think he wipes his own arse?

what a strange turn of conversation