Agreed. I was just making that point because herd mentality is very pervasive today..
Agreed. I was just making that point because herd mentality is very pervasive today..
Same as it ever was, if you ask me.
The store that denied him based on the "red flag" they felt will never have to worry about the civil suits that follow. I can't tell you how many people I denied due to me being suspect of them being high, drunk, or just a "bad feeling"(and sometimes because they were @$$ holes). Management/owners always backed me up, and I have never been served to testify.
I know that our rights should be unalienable, however there should be an emergency back up plan for the several hours/days delay before a delay/ deny can be set by NICS. A predator is less likely to call several gun stores in an area than a potential victim. Just an opinion from the inside.
If they got a phone call the person is drunk or under the influence, they certainly have the state law behind them to deny them a sale of alcohol.
Yes! A buddy that is passed away now had a contentious divorce. After an argument on the front porch of his ex's porch, he left with his son for his weekend visitation. On the way home he was swarmed with LEO.
She called the cops to report he was drunk when picking up his son. He hadn't had a drink in years, and the autopsy proved it.
Isn't that the way that they get rid of their political opposition in Russia--declare them mentally deficient(without certified proof), chemically dependent(without certified proof), etc.(without certified proof) and then send them to the gulag or assassinate (never to be heard of again)?
Last edited:
If everyone who is not in prison or an institution is armed, cases such as this would be rare. It stands to reason that an armed society is a polite society, and if someone gets out of control of their senses, being able to defend one's self, etc., is paramount in a polite society. There are many reasons the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is protected in the absolute fashion it is. This sort of thing is just one.
Woody
Woody
How do you figure? The 21st Amendment merely returned control to the states; there are plenty of dry counties around, and there's nothing (save perhaps for political will) to prevent a state from going completely dry.
in the second section, they said that intoxicating liquors are a Constitutional Right, but it gives a state the ability to regulate or prohibit intoxicating liquors, within its borders, but not federally. I guess sort of in comparison to the Thirteen Amendment, did it make slavery legal or illegal federally? The Second Amendment does not specifically give a state the right to regulate Arms. I was making the point that both are a Right, but a state has the Right to require a bartender to cut someone off. My question is, is an FFL required to stop a sale, if someone calls and says someone is crazy, in comparison to a bartender? If so, can a state regulate the sale of a firearm based on a someone believing someone else is crazy?
Lastly, the more I think about it the more vacuous my statement sounds.
As a society, we like to armchair quarterback every situation and then blame as many people as possible when something goes wrong....but there is only one person to blame in this situation.
Similar threads
