"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
So, the applicable statute does not require a conviction, but rather just an arrest or charge in order to kick in the requirement that a valid concealed carry weapon permit be revoked. I'm curious to know if his CCW was revoked as the law requires or is there an assumption not based in fact in the story as presented?
I'm asking these questions because I've discovered that we really have to be careful with things we read on the internet. An example being that in the latest school shooting, some news reports, and even one of our members, reported that the shooter used a shotgun, a pistol and an AR15 rifle when there was in fact no AR15 used. I understand the need people have to advance a narrative, I'm trying to understand yours.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
only does the influence of American culture/news really stop at the physical borders, I mean the whole world hears of this news. But the shootings don't seem to travel much beyond U.S. borders.Very interesting links to read, Bae. Thanks.
Trees don't grow on money
That's because of the gun control laws that many other countries have. People don't have access to AR-15's.
Frustratingly, though some of the nicer ones of those are for sale at great prices in a gunstore in Canada just a few miles from my house, I am not allowed to buy one and bring it home, because the one I want is made with parts from some country the USA is grumpy with. So instead of $400 Canadian (which is what, $37 US?), I have to pay $2400 for the nearly-identical item, made with all-US parts....
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)