Judge says he gets his guns back even though he is blind

Judge says he gets his guns back even though he is blind

This is a discussion on Judge says he gets his guns back even though he is blind within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; 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 ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
Like Tree36Likes

Thread: Judge says he gets his guns back even though he is blind

  1. #1
    Member Array mnmbrewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    195

    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.


  2. #2
    Ex Member Array Bullet1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    963
    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.
    Aceoky, ctr, BigJon10125 and 3 others like this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array Crescentstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    584
    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."

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    "Thou shall not be infringed unless ye be blind".
    BugDude likes this.

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,042
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    "Thou shall not be infringed unless ye be blind".
    Sad, that the judge was seemingly looking for any excuse to not return his confiscated property.

    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.
    Ghost1958 and ctr like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738
    Nevermind how you feel, Judge, just uphold the law. Is anybody able to explain to me how the Judge has the authority to order his property to be destroyed?
    Ghost1958, ccw9mm, Aceoky and 2 others like this.
    "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

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array DingBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,728
    ..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?

    ...awesome....
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array high pockets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Georgia for now
    Posts
    4,664
    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."

    - Anon

  9. #9
    Ex Member Array stylus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    All over
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Sad, that the judge was seemingly looking for any excuse to not return his confiscated property.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    Aceoky, ccw9mm, Ghost1958 and 2 others like this.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array sigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by mnmbrewing View Post
    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.
    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.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array sigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Crescentstar View Post
    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..........
    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.

  12. #12
    Lead Moderator
    Array rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    16,026
    If the man was aquitted , he should get his guns and ammo back.
    OldVet, ctr, BugDude and 2 others like this.
    "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson


    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738
    Quote Originally Posted by stylus View Post
    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.

    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.
    Exactly. I'd love to hear how/why the judge was able to order his property destroyed.
    stylus and Aceoky like this.
    "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

  14. #14
    Distinguished Member Array Knightrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,324
    I don't even think that it was the judges duty to get rid of the ammo.....
    stylus and BugDude like this.
    Glock: 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

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Knightrider View Post
    I don't even think that it was the judges duty to get rid of the ammo.....
    I'm doubting (seriously) it is within the authority of the judge to do so
    stylus and blitzburgh like this.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors