"encounter" with my disapatcher

**ByblosHex** · August 28th, 2011, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by TheWolff

You accused them of making information hard to copy, and spoke poorly of them for it. I was letting people know that I didn't have any problems. I don't see why you're getting defensive when you were the one that was wrong in the first place. It would be one thing if you said you couldn't cut and paste, but instead, you said they'd made it impossible and questioned their intentions. In IE and FF, the highlight color for me is blue, then I hit ctrl+c to copy. I didn't use any tricks. Maybe update your java.

The guys over there do a lot of work to maintain that site, and it has helped many people. Lots of people read this site, and I didn't anyone to be turned off to paopencarry because of an incorrect assertion.

...I'm just going to boycott PAFOA. It's not what it used to be.

This is ridiculous.

**4tun8** · August 28th, 2011, 08:47 PM

If you guys want to argue about copy and paste go make your own thread about it, I don't need it in mine.

**XACEX** · August 29th, 2011, 12:32 AM

So gunlawyer, If someone were to be caught and wrongfully arrested for violating the statute tomorrow and went to court with the "other lawful purpose is self-defense" defense, would they be able to cite the Chris anfuso case as precedent, or just an example interpretation, or would it hold no weight whatsoever?

**GunLawyer001** · August 29th, 2011, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by XACEX

So gunlawyer, If someone were to be caught and wrongfully arrested for violating the statute tomorrow and went to court with the "other lawful purpose is self-defense" defense, would they be able to cite the Chris anfuso case as precedent, or just an example interpretation, or would it hold no weight whatsoever?

I don't think it's a published case, not even in the D&C books (but I haven't checked).

It's not binding authority, because the judge is a trial court judge. It's not traditional "persuasive authority", which would be an appellate case in a different jurisdiction, or a law review article, or for certain members of the USSC, something said by any European leftist.

It's more of a "proof of concept" thing. At least one defendant has gone to trial instead of taking a plea, and been acquitted with no defense other than the fact that his behavior was completely lawful; which ought to be a damn good defense all the time, but isn't.