Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Illegals Win Ranchers Property

Expand Messages
  • Joe Haynes
    Will the RLC be making a news release regarding the abominable decision in Arizona against a rancher who detained illegals (border crossers), was sued by them,
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 20, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Will the RLC be making a news release regarding the abominable
      decision in Arizona against a rancher who detained illegals (border
      crossers), was sued by them, and lost his ranch to them thanks to
      Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Pimp Law Center?

      I cannot believe this is happening. George Bush has failed to protect
      our borders from illegals and now they have the power to sue over
      being detained. Bush needs to immediately pardon these ranchers,
      throw the "border crossers" into jail/deport them back to El Salvador,
      and get Morris Dees brought up on sedition charges.

      If this continues, the Kelo decision will look like two kids fighting
      over lunch money. Our property will never be safe against
      tresspassers who have no legal right to be here. If this is not about
      property rights, then I don't know what is.

      Here is what the SPLC says on their own website:
      http://www.splcenter.org/legal/news/article.jsp?site_area=2&aid=125

      Joe Haynes
      Seminole, FL
    • DGHarrison
      The article says that the illegals that managed to confiscate the ranchers property do not intend to live there and will sell the property. Of course they
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 20, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        The article says that the illegals that managed to confiscate the ranchers' property do not intend to live there and will sell the property. Of course they don't want to live there ... who would want a piece of dirt that has illegals tromping through it daily? Makes you wonder how many false charges will stem from this incident, when future illegals find out and invite retaliation against themselves, in the hope of hitting it rich on the new legal lotto scam.

        Something tells me this issue is too hot for the RLC. Call me a cynic, but with all the difficulty we have had in just putting together a simple statement regarding the Supreme stupidity of the Kelo decision, I can't imagine the RLC will stick its neck out with such a racially tinged issue.

        Doug Harrison
        Minnesota

        Joe Haynes wrote:
        Will the RLC be making a news release regarding the abominable
        decision in Arizona against a rancher who detained illegals (border
        crossers), was sued by them, and lost his ranch to them thanks to
        Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Pimp Law Center?

        I cannot believe this is happening.  George Bush has failed to protect
        our borders from illegals and now they have the power to sue over
        being detained.  Bush needs to immediately pardon these ranchers,
        throw the "border crossers" into jail/deport them back to El Salvador,
        and get Morris Dees brought up on sedition charges.

        If this continues, the Kelo decision will look like two kids fighting
        over lunch money.  Our property will never be safe against
        tresspassers who have no legal right to be here.  If this is not about
        property rights, then I don't know what is.

        Here is what the SPLC says on their own website:
        http://www.splcenter.org/legal/news/article.jsp?site_area=2&aid=125

        Joe Haynes
        Seminole, FL


      • Barry Moore
        May I intercede here? I think we often have blinders on regarding our mission . Our stated mission is to elect more Ron Paul-types to office, as is the
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 20, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          May I intercede here?
           
          I think we often have blinders on regarding our "mission". Our stated "mission" is to elect more Ron Paul-types to office, as is the stated purpose of the Libs.
           
          But I also believe an "action" item is to release statements as to our intent in certain situations.
           
          Given the gravity of current times, I don't think we have enough time to return the country to a freedom-related persuasion in short order. Therefore, we should at least issue a statement on relevant events in the name of the RLC. This is one of them. There WILL be more to come in the future.
           
          The reason? Our stated opinion matters, whether or not it's backed up at the polls.

          DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...> wrote:
          The article says that the illegals that managed to confiscate the ranchers' property do not intend to live there and will sell the property. Of course they don't want to live there ... who would want a piece of dirt that has illegals tromping through it daily? Makes you wonder how many false charges will stem from this incident, when future illegals find out and invite retaliation against themselves, in the hope of hitting it rich on the new legal lotto scam.

          Something tells me this issue is too hot for the RLC. Call me a cynic, but with all the difficulty we have had in just putting together a simple statement regarding the Supreme stupidity of the Kelo decision, I can't imagine the RLC will stick its neck out with such a racially tinged issue.

          Doug Harrison
          Minnesota

          Joe Haynes wrote:
          Will the RLC be making a news release regarding the abominable
          decision in Arizona against a rancher who detained illegals (border
          crossers), was sued by them, and lost his ranch to them thanks to
          Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Pimp Law Center?

          I cannot believe this is happening.  George Bush has failed to protect
          our borders from illegals and now they have the power to sue over
          being detained.  Bush needs to immediately pardon these ranchers,
          throw the "border crossers" into jail/deport them back to El Salvador,
          and get Morris Dees brought up on sedition charges.

          If this continues, the Kelo decision will look like two kids fighting
          over lunch money.  Our property will never be safe against
          tresspassers who have no legal right to be here.  If this is not about
          property rights, then I don't know what is.

          Here is what the SPLC says on their own website:
          http://www.splcenter.org/legal/news/article.jsp?site_area=2&aid=125

          Joe Haynes
          Seminole, FL



          Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

        • DGHarrison
          I have nothing against releasing a statement on this issue. My cynicism derives from the hand wringing that occurred in the aftermath of the Kelo decision. It
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 20, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I have nothing against releasing a statement on this issue. My cynicism derives from the hand wringing that occurred in the aftermath of the Kelo decision. It took us so long to respond that we look like we're trying to hitch a ride on someone else's bandwagon. By the time our statement hit the public arena, several state legislatures had already hitched their horses to the bandwagon and were heading off down main street, and we're just running along in the dust behind it trying to catch up. Timeliness is as important as the message. We should have had a statement published within hours (or at least within a couple of days) of the Supreme Court's Kelso decision. It seems to me that we risk painting ourselves as irrelevant if we toss in our two notes after the band has stopped playing.

            I know it is easy to criticize and difficult to act, but, of course, one needs authority in order to act, and I have none. I guess what I am saying here is that if we're going to say something, anything, on current issues, then it has to be cutting edge. It has to be on the sweet spot of the news cycle. When an issue is hot and the media is looking to put ink on paper, that is the time for the RLC press release to hit the editor's desk. If we wait too long, the editor has new hot issues to find ink for, and all of the Johnnie-come-latelys will find their statements lining the bottom of the round file.

            Maybe a solution would be to require at least one press release per week from the RLC. The way things are going in this nation, there should be something worthy of condemnation (or occasionally, of praise) every week. Make it the "Sunday Morning Press Release" (or maybe the "Saturday Morning Press Release"), so it can hit the news cycles on Monday mornings, when folks pick up a paper to see what they missed over the weekend. Maybe some other day would be a better news day, depending upon whether we're seen as "fluffy filler" or "incisive commentary."

            Maybe we need to pay someone to write some good stuff. Or offer, say, $25 per officially published RLC statement and let everyone in on the act. Maybe you'd get some timely offerings that were good enough to send out. (Do we have enough money in the bank to even consider paying anyone anything?)

            My point on this issue -- on all issues --  is: make a timely statement or make no statement at all. Think of a Greek messenger walking back to headquarters with news of an enemy invasion instead of running the marathon as fast as he could. The one is useless, and likely to be impaled for his tardiness, the other, heroic.

            Doug Harrison
            Minnesota
            <>Barry Moore wrote: [snip]</> But I also believe an "action" item is to release statements as to our intent in certain situations. Given the gravity of current times, I don't think we have enough time to return the country to a freedom-related persuasion in short order. Therefore, we should at least issue a statement on relevant events in the name of the RLC. This is one of them. There WILL be more to come in the future. The reason? Our stated opinion matters, whether or not it's backed up at the polls. 
            Doug Harrison (MN) wrote: [snip] Something tells me this issue is too hot for the RLC. Call me a cynic, but with all the difficulty we have had in just putting together a simple statement regarding the Supreme stupidity of the Kelo decision, I can't imagine the RLC will stick its neck out with such a racially tinged issue.
          • Chuck Seberg
            There s a lot of emotion about this issue right now, with 2 states in a declared state of emergency, and the resulting urge to do something about it . But
            Message 5 of 17 , Aug 20, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              There's a lot of emotion about this issue right now, with 2 states in a declared state of emergency, and the resulting urge to "do something about it".  But this case at it's core is a trespass case.  In spite of all the ramifications, it was a test of trespass law in Arizona as it applies to landowners and to trespassers. 
               
              I don't think in any state it's legal for a landowner to detain or "arrest" a trespasser.  A landowner can't likewise erect booby-traps or shoot at trespassers.  About all a landowner can do is request the trespasser to leave his property, and he's supposed to have police backing in this request.  Erecting a fence and posting "No Trespassing" signs can mark the boundaries of a property and increase the difficulty of entering.  But about the only crime involved is when a trespasser refuses to leave when asked.   
               
              As long as illegals are permitted to bring suits in our courts (!!),  any landowner that exceeds his authority by unlawfully detaining illegals is liable for damages.  We might question in this case if the judgment was reasonable, but not whether the illegals had a cause of action.
               
               It also appears the forfeiture of the property was incidental to the case.  The judgment was for a cash award, not a property settlement.  The illegals weren't seeking the property, and the judge didn't award it.  It appears the property was used in lieu of cash.
               
              So where would we start to craft a public statement for the RLC?  We support the trespass laws, don't we?  Or perhaps we would advocate more rights for the landowners, and less rights for the trespassers?  Or broaden the question and talk about how the illegals got there in the first place.  Not an easy task to define our position.   
               
              BTW, check out "RLC Principles 2004" and you will find the words "open borders" therein.  We appear to have followed our Libertarian brethren down this road.  I argued until I was blue to get it changed over there with no success.  Maybe the RLC will be more receptive?
               
              Chuck    
                

              Will the RLC be making a news release regarding the abominable
              decision in Arizona against a rancher who detained illegals (border
              crossers), was sued by them, and lost his ranch to them thanks to
              Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Pimp Law Center?

              I cannot believe this is happening.  George Bush has failed to protect
              our borders from illegals and now they have the power to sue over
              being detained.  Bush needs to immediately pardon these ranchers,
              throw the "border crossers" into jail/deport them back to El Salvador,
              and get Morris Dees brought up on sedition charges.

              If this continues, the Kelo decision will look like two kids fighting
              over lunch money.  Our property will never be safe against
              tresspassers who have no legal right to be here.  If this is not about
              property rights, then I don't know what is.

              Here is what the SPLC says on their own website:
              http://www.splcenter.org/legal/news/article.jsp?site_area=2&aid=125

              Joe Haynes
              Seminole, FL


            • C. Bond
              ... Citizen s arrest is legal in every state I know of. -- Oderint dum metuant http://www.rightwingnation.com
              Message 6 of 17 , Aug 20, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Chuck Seberg wrote:

                > I don't think in any state it's legal for a landowner to detain
                > or "arrest" a trespasser.

                Citizen's arrest is legal in every state I know of.


                --
                Oderint dum metuant
                http://www.rightwingnation.com
              • Chuck Seberg
                I m not an attorney so this isn t gospel, but a citizen s arrest arises when a citizen witnesses an unlawful activity (same as a cop). As I pointed out in my
                Message 7 of 17 , Aug 20, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm not an attorney so this isn't gospel, but a citizen's arrest arises when a citizen witnesses an unlawful activity (same as a cop).  As I pointed out in my last email, under trespass law it isn't unlawful to walk across someone's land (even if it's posted).  So a citizen arrest in this case would be an unlawful arrest.  Check the wikipedia.org discussion of trespass for a better grounding in this subject.
                   
                  Chuck
                  From: C. Bond
                   
                  Chuck Seberg wrote:

                  > I don't think in any state it's legal for a landowner to detain
                  > or "arrest" a trespasser.

                  Citizen's arrest is legal in every state I know of.


                  --
                  Oderint dum metuant
                  http://www.rightwingnation.com

                • C. Bond
                  ... Interesting. Where I come from, TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT signs are taken seriously. And they re not uncommon. -- Oderint dum metuant
                  Message 8 of 17 , Aug 20, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Chuck Seberg wrote:
                    > I'm not an attorney so this isn't gospel, but a citizen's arrest arises
                    > when a citizen witnesses an unlawful activity (same as a cop). As I
                    > pointed out in my last email, under trespass law it isn't unlawful to
                    > walk across someone's land (even if it's posted). So a citizen arrest
                    > in this case would be an unlawful arrest. Check the wikipedia.org
                    > discussion of trespass for a better grounding in this subject.

                    Interesting. Where I come from, TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT
                    signs are taken seriously. And they're not uncommon.


                    --
                    Oderint dum metuant
                    http://www.rightwingnation.com
                  • John Pankratz
                    These are just my observations and opinions as a layman who has lived near the border for over 40 years. If it is correct that the landowners did not answer
                    Message 9 of 17 , Aug 20, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      These are just my observations and opinions as a layman who has lived
                      near the border for over 40 years.

                      If it is correct that the landowners did not answer the suit, then I
                      don't see how we could make a statement against this particular case.

                      As to the crime committed, it would depend on whether there were armed
                      trespassers or not. Also, there is a possibility of vandalism.

                      As to the amount of the default judgment, I do not have knowledge of the
                      amount of harm done to the illegals. If they were injured in any real
                      way physically, then the loss must be established. If they were only
                      held until the law came, then the judgment is probably excessive.

                      I do think that the ranchers in general are suffering losses greater
                      than merely having their grass trampled. Fences are being cut, property
                      is being trashed, animals are being lost and/or killed or injured, and
                      the ranchers' families are being made to live in fear as real as any
                      anguish caused the illegals by the actions of the ranchers.

                      Finally, this is nothing new. People living along the border have been
                      subject to worse predation than mere transit by illegals, including
                      border raids going back at least 175 years. Maybe that is why I have
                      heard the Mexicans being called "America's Palestinians." I wouldn't
                      personally use the term.

                      John P
                      .......................................



                      Chuck Seberg wrote:

                      > There's a lot of emotion about this issue right now, with 2 states in
                      > a declared state of emergency, and the resulting urge to "do something
                      > about it". But this case at it's core is a trespass case. In spite
                      > of all the ramifications, it was a test of trespass law in Arizona as
                      > it applies to landowners and to trespassers.



                      --
                      I support liberty by logical necessity because I'm a Christian.

                      http://www.theadvocates.org/christian/thies.html
                    • F Worley
                      That s why you need a hispanic spokesperson to talk about these issues. And an African American spokesperson to talk about other issues that can be easily
                      Message 10 of 17 , Aug 20, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        That's why you need a hispanic spokesperson to talk about these issues.  And an African American spokesperson to talk about other issues that can be easily misinterpreted.
                         
                        Frank


                        DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...> wrote:
                        The article says that the illegals that managed to confiscate the ranchers' property do not intend to live there and will sell the property. Of course they don't want to live there ... who would want a piece of dirt that has illegals tromping through it daily? Makes you wonder how many false charges will stem from this incident, when future illegals find out and invite retaliation against themselves, in the hope of hitting it rich on the new legal lotto scam.

                        Something tells me this issue is too hot for the RLC. Call me a cynic, but with all the difficulty we have had in just putting together a simple statement regarding the Supreme stupidity of the Kelo decision, I can't imagine the RLC will stick its neck out with such a racially tinged issue.

                        Doug Harrison
                        Minnesota

                        Joe Haynes wrote:
                        Will the RLC be making a news release regarding the abominable
                        decision in Arizona against a rancher who detained illegals (border
                        crossers), was sued by them, and lost his ranch to them thanks to
                        Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Pimp Law Center?

                        I cannot believe this is happening.  George Bush has failed to protect
                        our borders from illegals and now they have the power to sue over
                        being detained.  Bush needs to immediately pardon these ranchers,
                        throw the "border crossers" into jail/deport them back to El Salvador,
                        and get Morris Dees brought up on sedition charges.

                        If this continues, the Kelo decision will look like two kids fighting
                        over lunch money.  Our property will never be safe against
                        tresspassers who have no legal right to be here.  If this is not about
                        property rights, then I don't know what is.

                        Here is what the SPLC says on their own website:
                        http://www.splcenter.org/legal/news/article.jsp?site_area=2&aid=125

                        Joe Haynes
                        Seminole, FL


                      • Adam J Bernay
                        Actually, Chuck, it is entirely legal to defend your property with weapons. Goes on all the time. Trespassers are assumed to be armed and dangerous. And a
                        Message 11 of 17 , Aug 20, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Actually, Chuck, it is entirely legal to defend your property with weapons.
                          Goes on all the time. Trespassers are assumed to be armed and dangerous.
                          And a citizen’s arrest is legal in all 50 states.

                          As for “open borders” being in the 2004 version of the statement of
                          positions, what it actually says is:

                          Foreign Relations
                          Peaceful diplomatic relations, free trade and open borders enhance
                          the ability of citizens to travel, engage in international commerce and
                          support the pursuit of liberty everywhere in the world.
                          We support equitable treaties that enhance the security and exchange
                          with other nations, but oppose any agreement that infringes on the
                          sovereignty of the United States.
                          We support policies conducive to economic liberty, such as the
                          reduction and elimination of all import and export restrictions on private
                          trade, both as a unilateral policy and through multi-lateral agreements.
                          We favor the phasing out of all foreign aid, or payments to other
                          nations or international bodies, as a form of global welfare and commercial
                          intervention.

                          In context with equitable treaties and peaceful diplomatic relations,
                          invasions by border violators are plainly NOT meant by "open borders," at
                          least not in my view. I would not support any such statement.


                          Adam

                          "Yes, I do have questions.  I get to ask them BECAUSE I'M FREE!"
                             -- "Bumper of My SUV," Chely Wright
                        • Chuck Seberg
                          People might enter your property for any number of nefarious reasons, all of which are crimes. And you do have the right to defend your own or another s LIFE
                          Message 12 of 17 , Aug 21, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            People might enter your property for any number of nefarious reasons, all of which are crimes.  And you do have the right to defend your own or another's LIFE with a weapon.  But that's not what we're talking about here. Trespassers by definition aren't there to threaten your life or your property.  So don't go changing the subject. 
                             
                            I'm a gun owner, NRA instructor, and former holder of a California (your state) CCW card.  I know gun laws.  You apparently don't. Your ideas are silly, but potentially deadly  (Also to C. Bond, who claims to shoot trespassers).
                             
                            Chuck
                             

                            Actually, Chuck, it is entirely legal to defend your property with weapons.
                            Goes on all the time.  Trespassers are assumed to be armed and dangerous.
                            And a citizen’s arrest is legal in all 50 states.
                          • michael franks
                            Just a side note, if I haven t mentioned it before? Starting Sept 1st in Texas, a new bill takes affect that will allow anyone who can legally carry a
                            Message 13 of 17 , Aug 21, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Just a side note, if I haven't mentioned it before? Starting Sept 1st in
                              Texas, a new bill takes affect that will allow anyone who can legally carry
                              a concealed firearm to be able to carry one in their vehicle with NO permit
                              required. What it does is basically finally define what is "traveling" in
                              Texas. We could always carry a weapon if "traveling" but it was very loose
                              as to what traveling was. Now if your in your vehicle at all, even just
                              backing out of your driveway that is "traveling."

                              So when in Texas.......one can "lock and load" WITHOUT a permit.
                              Michael

                              >From: "Chuck Seberg" <pusherprop3@...>
                              >Reply-To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                              >To: <RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com>
                              >Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Illegals Win Ranchers Property
                              >Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:43:03 -0500


                              >People might enter your property for any number of nefarious reasons, all
                              of which are crimes. And you do have the right to defend your own or
                              another's LIFE with a weapon. But that's not what we're talking about here.
                              Trespassers by definition aren't there to threaten your life or your
                              property. So don't go changing the subject.
                              >
                              >I'm a gun owner, NRA instructor, and former holder of a California (your
                              >state) CCW card. I know gun laws. You apparently don't. Your ideas are
                              >silly, but potentially deadly (Also to C. Bond, who claims to shoot
                              >trespassers).
                              >
                              >Chuck
                              >
                              > From: Adam J Bernay
                              >
                              >
                              > Actually, Chuck, it is entirely legal to defend your property with
                              >weapons.
                              > Goes on all the time. Trespassers are assumed to be armed and
                              >dangerous.
                              > And a citizen's arrest is legal in all 50 states.
                            • C. Bond
                              ... I claimed nothing of the kind. And being from California, you wouldn t know much about gun laws, not outside your Soviet Republik. And as for your
                              Message 14 of 17 , Aug 22, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Chuck Seberg wrote:

                                > I'm a gun owner, NRA instructor, and former holder of a California (your
                                > state) CCW card. I know gun laws. You apparently don't. Your ideas are
                                > silly, but potentially deadly (Also to C. Bond, who claims to shoot
                                > trespassers).

                                I claimed nothing of the kind. And being from California, you
                                wouldn't know much about gun laws, not outside your Soviet
                                Republik. And as for your credentials, so? Who doesn't have
                                a CHL?

                                It doesn't surprise me in the least that California would
                                not allow you to defend your property. It's California, after
                                all. Some of us live in red states, thank god.

                                If you're going to attribute things to me, I'd appreciate
                                it if you didn't lie through your teeth, thanks.

                                --
                                Oderint dum metuant
                                http://www.rightwingnation.com
                              • westmiller@aol.com
                                From: Chuck Seberg ... property. I don t want to encourage issue discussion on this eGroup, but I agree with Chuck. As I pointed out
                                Message 15 of 17 , Aug 22, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  From: "Chuck Seberg" <pusherprop3@...>
                                  > Trespassers by definition aren't there to threaten your life or your
                                  property.

                                  I don't want to encourage issue discussion on this
                                  eGroup, but I agree with Chuck. As I pointed out a few
                                  months ago, the civilian posse is a legitimate form of
                                  protest, until one of them kills a trespasser. In this
                                  case, the owner did not dispute the allegations that
                                  he had brutally pistol-whipped a trespasser. He lost
                                  his property in a civil case that he did not contest.

                                  I do think the RLC needs a more explicit position on
                                  the immigration issue, but I'm not sure that there is a
                                  broad consensus on the principles. The current RLC
                                  Statement is (intentionally?) vague and general:

                                  "Peaceful diplomatic relations, free trade and open borders enhance the
                                  ability of citizens to travel, engage in international commerce and support the
                                  pursuit of liberty everywhere in the world.
                                  We support equitable treaties that enhance security and exchange with other
                                  nations, but oppose any agreement that infringes on the sovereignty of the
                                  United States."

                                  The "open borders" phrase is clearly in the context
                                  of citizen travel and commerce; while "enhance security"
                                  is expressed as a legitimate objective of sovereignty.
                                  I have my own position (basically, the policy prior to
                                  the 1930s) on immigration, but I'd prefer to see a broad
                                  discussion that is more appropriate on RLC-Discuss.

                                  Bill
                                • Chuck Seberg
                                  This closes the loop. Quote C. Bond: Where I come from, TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT This is either pure BS or else C. Bond has personal knowledge of the
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Aug 22, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    This closes the loop.  Quote C. Bond:  "Where I come from, TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT"
                                    This is either pure BS or else C. Bond has personal knowledge of the veracity of his statement. It appears from his response to my baiting comment, that it's the former rather than the latter.
                                     
                                    As to his slurs against my place of residence, he made an unwarranted assumption.  My mention of the fine state of California in my comments isn't determinative of my place of residence.  In fact my state is just as red as his.  So there!!
                                     
                                    This little exchange has been beneficial if it clarifies the difference between trespassing and other more serious crimes.  We all could bump into a trespass situation in our personal lives, on either side of the issue.  Knowing the limits on our actions as landowners can help to keep us from "losing the ranch."          
                                     
                                    Chuck
                                    From: C. Bond

                                    Chuck Seberg wrote:

                                     Your ideas are
                                    > silly, but potentially deadly  (Also to C. Bond, who claims to shoot
                                    > trespassers).

                                    I claimed nothing of the kind. And being from California, you
                                    wouldn't know much about gun laws, not outside your Soviet
                                    Republik. And as for your credentials, so? Who doesn't have
                                    a CHL?

                                    It doesn't surprise me in the least that California would
                                    not allow you to defend your property. It's California, after
                                    all. Some of us live in red states, thank god.
                                  • DGHarrison
                                    Anyone who has access to lethal weapons (whether or not stored in a building or vehicle, or worn on the person) must study, know, and adhere to his state s
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Aug 22, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Anyone who has access to lethal weapons (whether or not stored in a
                                      building or vehicle, or worn on the person) must study, know, and adhere
                                      to his state's laws regarding the use of lethal force. In general,
                                      lethal force may only be used in the self defense of a person -- not
                                      property. Loose chatter about the vengeful use of lethal force is not
                                      helpful in defense of the Second Amendment. I hope that everyone will
                                      tame the wild statements and present a rational view in the public square.

                                      Doug Harrison
                                      Minnesota
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.