Jump to content

cshipley92

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

cshipley92's Achievements

Member

Member (21/24)

  1. From January 1, 2010 to present there were · 3730 Robberies (includes strong arm/unarmed and armed both) · 1481 Assaults (including armed and unarmed) · 4312 Batteries · 33 Criminal Sexual Assaults · 17 Kidnappings (includes 6 child abductions by strangers) I can get PDF's of each category if you need, but that's the overall view. Pretty scary isn't it.
  2. Molly if you've got an email I can use I can send you a PDF or Excel spreadsheet either one, or both. You can email me at cshipley92@gmail.com
  3. I figured out how to sort them by date and location. I included the following crimes; Assualt, Battery, Criminal Sexual Assualt, Kidnapping, Robbery, Sexual Offenses and Stalking. But I can't figure out how to paste it here. I've imported the data as both a PDF and Excel. Any help with how to paste those from my PC to here?
  4. Got mine today in the mail. They look awesome. Thanks cjurczak. I'll be passing small batches along to family and friends. Hopefully this far from Chicago we won't have a lot of businesses post but you never know.
  5. Pardon my ignorance, but I'm assuming that means it was given to all the SCOTUS judges so they can look it over and then come to a decision on whether to hear it or not?
  6. Playing 's advocate here.... That would depend on the investigating officer, and subsequently the SA and court's interpretation of "immediately accessible". If the officer felt that loaded and in a case, fanny pack, etc was still "immediately accessible", and the court later agreed with him/her, you could still end up being charged with carrying in violation of the statute. Strike that, I see what you're saying now. It would have to meet ALL THREE requirements because of the word "AND". So as long as you took away one of the three, ie it was "cased" you wouldn't be in violation of the law. You could very well be right.
  7. Did the state give those reasons, and in writing? If so, that's a gift to Woollard. 1. The "actor" was obviously still dangerous to the family since he attacked his own parents and his ex wife. 2. SCOTUS has already said that the right to self defense is NOT limited to the home. Sounds more and more like this is a good one for us to have go to SCOTUS.
  8. While it would have made a better case IMO if the suspect was still alive the point is that the plaintiff was denied a permit at the time he needed it most, proving that Maryland's system is faulty and that may issue denies a citizen the most basic right of self defense. This is further proven by the fact the suspect DID attack the plaintiff again recently. Yes he took his own life shortly thereafter but the plaintiff was still in grave danger and should have been able to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights and protected himself and his family. Just to be clear, the plaintiff was his father-in-law, who WAS NOT attacked this time. The now-deceased person attacked his estranged wife (again) and his OWN parents. My bad. Thanks for clearing that up. I knew he'd attacked someone again and thought it was the plaintiff. Still, it goes to show he WAS still violent and dangerous.
  9. While it would have made a better case IMO if the suspect was still alive the point is that the plaintiff was denied a permit at the time he needed it most, proving that Maryland's system is faulty and that may issue denies a citizen the most basic right of self defense. This is further proven by the fact the suspect DID attack the plaintiff again recently. Yes he took his own life shortly thereafter but the plaintiff was still in grave danger and should have been able to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights and protected himself and his family.
  10. +1000 maybe more in dollars when you win your case in court. LOL
  11. Don't worry Obama knows who you are LOL But hey at least you are a supporting member, to me that is all that matters. Ha Ha my comment here just reminded me that mine had expired and I probably looked like a hypocrite........ just re-upped
  12. Yes but it's an exemption to an unconstutional law, like cshipley said how can you have an exemption of a law that no longer exists? Yeah, I'm unsure there. Hopefully the SA he mentioned in the other thread returns his call. Will be an interesting response. Don't think Morgan county ever joined the will not prosecute counties. Not officially, but he did say that he would handle each instance on a case by case basis.
  13. a loaded and partially or fully concealed firearm...yes. but what about open carry? What would they charge you with there?
  14. Exactly. or as I said above.... What law can they charge a person for carrying under?
  15. My point exactly. And since the FCCA didn't CHANGE that statute, but provided an exception to it, how can we be charged under the UUW statute? ie, If I were to carry today (not saying I will but...) what law would I be violating? UUW no longer exists so they couldn't charge me with that. So, what law would they charge me with breaking?????
×
×
  • Create New...