Quote:
Originally Posted by edstephan
Has anyone really thought about Innocent until Proven Guilty? Even if it is/was PEX, everyone is passing judgment on newspaper and TV accounts and we know how unbiased and accurate their reporting is.
Personally, I will make a decision of guilt or innocence for myself after hearing both sides. Until he is acquitted or convicted I will support him
To me from the reports I have read, someone is trying to make an example of him to scare the sheeple into staying compliant with their wishes not the laws.
The law strictly says that the Courts MUST have an available means of check a legally carried firearm and the district court has ignored this law as if their above it.
True this may not be the best way of testing the system but nonetheless it is still a test to the system.
Just my 2¢
Ed
|
The issue isn't innocent until proven guilty. The OP asked a general question that was occasioned by this specific situation. For my part, I'm discussing this topic from a theoretical standpoint. I have no idea whether this person should be found not guilty (which is a damn sight different than innocent), or guilty. It doesn't matter, frankly.
The central theme of the discussion appears to me to be whether a drug user should be accorded the ability to carry, or even own, firearms. Are they responsible citizens, or are they not?
Further, the (alleged) failure to provide storage facilities in no way negates the prohibition against guns in court facilities, nor does it allay any penalty associated with the act.