As neighbors hailed a Brooklyn dog store owner who fatally shot two would-be robbers as a hero, law enforcement authorities yesterday were mulling whether he should be charged criminally.
"¢ Subscribe to Newsday
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Tuesday night's thwarted robbery appears to be "a justified shooting." However, law enforcement authorities have yet to decide whether charges will be filed against Ivan Blume, the owner of Quality Canines pet shop, for an unlicensed gun found inside his shop, police said.
Officials at the Brooklyn district attorney's office said last night that no decision had been made on whether to charge Blume in connection with the shooting or the unlicensed gun.
Just after 8 p.m. Tuesday, Michael Live, 48, and Hector Perez, 33, both of the Bronx, walked into the shop on Stillwell Avenue in Gravesend and pulled out handguns - Live gripping a 9-mm Beretta and Perez handling a .25-caliber Titan.
===========================
so they are thinkin' of charging a man that was exercising his rights?!
__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one pretty and well preserved package, but to skid across the line broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out, leaking oil, yelling GERONIMO!!!!!
I have no problem with him shooting the guys who were robbing him, but he should have had a license for the gun---that was the law. With rights come responsibilities. Gun owners are heard to say all the time, "We don't need more gun laws. We just need to enforce the ones we already have." If the law said this guy needed to license his gun, that's what he should have done.
__________________
I thought all writers drank to excess and beat their wives. You know one time I secretly wanted to be a writer.---C.K. Dexter Haven
Use the store owner on advertising to encurage other store owners to follow the law and register there guns. Sort of like Rock Stars doing antidrug campains as a punishment.
My first question might be, "If he would have applied would he have received a license"? If there was no record of criminal behavior on his part...and he applied for a license....would he have received it? All too often licensing is used in a manner to prohibit weapons ownership except for a "select few". And particularly if that was the case...he should be congratulated for both events. One, using the firearm successfully to defend himself. And two, for not following a blatantly Unconstitutional law! If that be the case...good for him twice!
I have a question for anyone.....as an American citizen do you have an obligation to obey a law that is demonstrably unconstitutional? Or rather, is your obligation as a citizen to disobey unconstitutional laws? Which do you think is the greater civic duty? Which do you believe to be the moral thing to do?
If the American Revolution would have failed....men like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, to name a few....would have been hung for treason! And that would have been appropriate.....wouldn't it? They were unquestionably breaking the law. They committed treason! Did they behave morally? Did they obey the greater "civic" good? Were they breaking existing laws?
Causes you to think a little about laws?!? Do you realize that every Nazi we executed after WWII....was executed for obeying "their laws"!?!
I don't know enough of the facts surrounding this case to say definitively what I believe should happen to this individual. But I will say that without any doubt...his highest obligation as a human being....is the obligation to protect both the life of his loved ones, and his own life. And IF by an unconstitutional law the "state" attempted to deprive him of this fundemental liberty....God bless him for doing the "right" thing!
P.S. The state has no right to license a fundemental liberty! (Nor do they have the Constitutional authority to do it!)
__________________
You can live life, or simply grow old!
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
RE: To hell in a handbasket
Quote:
I have no problem with him shooting the guys who were robbing him, but he should have had a license for the gun---that was the law. With rights come responsibilities.
I would probably congradulate the guy for removing these wastes of space from our Earth, but you bring up a very good point hntngirl.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
IMO its a case of, lets restrict gun ownership to the law abiding citizens so that violent crime rates will go down. Now theres a good piece of logic for you. Why did the store owner feel that he had to arm himself, duuuuh I dont know. Could it be he was afraid for his life, nah. Could it be so that he could rob his customers, ya thats it.
I have no problem with him shooting the guys who were robbing him, but he should have had a license for the gun---that was the law. With rights come responsibilities. Gun owners are heard to say all the time, "We don't need more gun laws. We just need to enforce the ones we already have." If the law said this guy needed to license his gun, that's what he should have done.
What you say is basically correct. However, please be advised that inside metropolitan New York City, it is VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE for an unconnected, ordinary citizen to obtain a pistol permit! In addition, pistol permits issued in all other counties of the State of New York are INVALID inside the five boroughs of NYC!!
__________________
"Bitte, trinks du das Wasser nicht. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen."
To hell in a handbasket
