• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Update on St. Louis couple

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,904
Location
El Paso, TX
Excellent! Good for him - AND that couple!
Aside from Jury Nullification, that's the way to deal with bad laws/DAs/Grand Juries and judges.
I agree though: They shouldn't have done a plea deal...
-- C
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,822
Location
Granite State of Mind
And now they are suing to get their guns back.
A couple of trial lawyers should know that they can't successfully sue for the return of property that they knowingly agreed to forfeit as part of a plea deal.

Should know, but their legal acumen is already suspect when it comes to anything beyond ambulance chasing and nuisance-suing their neighbors.

They're not prohibited persons. They can own all the guns they want. If they're suing to get back the guns that they voluntarily forfeited, it's just more evidence that they are habitual vexatious litigants.

Please note that I didn't say they were wrong for defending their property.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,904
Location
El Paso, TX
Yes, they should NOT have caved-in as they did and "voluntarily" do ANYTHING, let alone agree to give-up their guns.
But IIRC, they're liberals/Democrat-voters, so in that case it figures.
-- C
 
Last edited:
Top