Does it come under the 1st?
I don't know does it?
Does it come under the 1st?
BZZZZZZZZZZ. everyone knows that a 7.62 is much much bigger than a .45
.45 goes into 7.62 about 16.9 times so really a 7.62 is like 17x bigger than a .45 Holy crap think about the hole that will make! and that's why the guns that shoot them are called assault rifles
2
a : the diameter of a bullet or other projectile
b : the diameter of a bore of a gun usually expressed in hundredths or thousandths of an inch and typically written as a decimal fraction <.32 caliber>
Horse semen?
I won't speculate on the reason you brought that up, since I personally have no firsthand experience in horse semen consumption.
How about this - yes the guy may be a #$%%, but why should LE ASSUME he's breaking some law. Shouldn't they ASSUME that he's a free citizen, unrestricted by the guvmint....oh wait, that'd be LIBERTY.
I'm wondering about the caliber more than the barrel length. I know the OK Law says .45 caliber and isn't 7.62x39 a much bigger bullet than .45 caliber? I'm not sure of the actual diameter of either. Far as that goes, a .223 bullet might be considered "larger" if the whole thing were taken to court. Guess that one would depend on the judge.
Jerry,
I understand the concept of qualified immunity as protecting officers from liability in cases where law has not been clearly established or decided by the courts. It doesn't protect them from simply being ignorant of the law. Is this not correct?
Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights. This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate "clearly established law." The defense of qualified immunity was created by the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing a court's inquiry into a defendant's subjective state of mind with an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the contested action. A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his/her actions violated clearly established law.
As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982),[1] qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
In 2001, the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz established a rigid order in which courts must decide the merits of a defendant's qualified immunity defense. First, the court determines whether the complaint states a constitutional violation. If so, the next sequential step is to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the official's conduct. The Court subsequently overruled Saucier in Pearson v. Callahan, holding that the two-step procedure was no longer mandatory.
I honestly don't understand the outrage toward the citizen when the cops are the only ones who did anything wrong. I really wouldn't carry a Draco but I support his right to do so, and I expect law enforcement to know the law before drawing their weapons, TSA'ing a person, cuffing him, and detaining him. Why are we blaming the victim?
Enter your email address to join: