February 21st, 2014 12:47 PM
Judge says he gets his guns back even though he is blind
First question I have to ask is what is in the water in Sanford, FL? Also I am curious as to how old the ammunition is that the judge ordered destroyed.
Blind man acquitted in fatal shooting gets guns back | Seminole County News - WESH Home
I am glad to see that despite his handicap he can still protect himself.
February 21st, 2014 12:52 PM
While Judge John Galluzzo said he did not want to return the guns to Rogers,
he said it was the law.
Well at least he could read the law,,,, who care what he thinks.
February 21st, 2014 03:37 PM
First question I have to ask is what is in the water in Sanford, FL?
A friend of mine who lives there said half the residents seem to be transplanted New Yorkers, so there you go..........
"Clearly that's a YOU problem not a ME problem."
February 21st, 2014 03:38 PM
"Thou shall not be infringed unless ye be blind".
February 21st, 2014 03:44 PM
Sad, that the judge was seemingly looking for any excuse to not return his confiscated property.
Originally Posted by OutWestSystems
Shall not be infringed, indeed. As though folks who happen to have poor eyesight must by definition be divested of the means of effectively defending themselves. I'll never understand that logic, which apparently this judge was attempting to find a way to implement.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
February 21st, 2014 03:46 PM
February 21st, 2014 03:51 PM
..and why was the judge researching case law to try to find a case to not return his property? isn't that the job of either defense or porsecuting attorneys? isn't that an instance of a judge taking a side?
February 21st, 2014 04:03 PM
I would like to know who decided the ammunition was "too old and dangerous," and how they made that determination.
"If you make something idiot proof, someone will make a better idiot."
February 21st, 2014 04:12 PM
I recall a news story from a few years back, about a totally-blind man who was refused a carry permit, sued under anti-discrimination laws and won his permit. He demonstrated to the court his ability to feel out an attacker. Obviously he wouldn't be winning any marksman competitions anytime soon but distance isn't required to use a gun effectively. Just put the barrel in the perp's gut and pull the trigger.
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
As to OP's story: If the court had confiscated his car during the investigation, the court is still obligated to return the car under these circumstances even-though he can't drive. That he can't drive is irrelevant to it being his property and the state having no reason to keep it.
February 21st, 2014 05:01 PM
Not sure what you mean about the water in Sanford, it has been my home for the last 14 years. I live in the downtown area. Now if you are talking about what the judge drinks.....I think a whole lot of 'em drink the same thing.
Originally Posted by mnmbrewing
February 21st, 2014 05:03 PM
Like I said in another post, I've lived here in downtown Sanford. I don't think I have ever met anyone from NY so I can't testify that half the population is from there. Now you look a little further south you'll find a bunch of 'em.
Originally Posted by Crescentstar
February 21st, 2014 06:29 PM
If the man was aquitted , he should get his guns and ammo back.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset
February 21st, 2014 08:53 PM
Exactly. I'd love to hear how/why the judge was able to order his property destroyed.
Originally Posted by stylus
"Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
"Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis
February 21st, 2014 08:54 PM
I don't even think that it was the judges duty to get rid of the ammo.....
G22 .40 S&W and G23 .40 S&W Sig Sauer:
P938 9mm Smith and Wesson:
Model 437 .38 Spl, Model 65 357 Mag, and Sigma SW9VE 9mm
February 21st, 2014 08:58 PM
I'm doubting (seriously) it is within the authority of the judge to do so
Originally Posted by Knightrider
In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated: “[I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to.”
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors