Thing is, Samuel Sutter wasn't there--with "a person" I know very well--who lived in LA, where "ordinary" citizens can't get "permits"--but who defied the law and saved his family from multiple assailants--simply by producing his "illegally"-carried handgun and causing them to retreat without his having to fire a shot.Does carrying a gun illegally make you a danger to the public?
Bristol District Attorney Samuel Sutter thinks it does... [More]
He was no danger to the public. The people he scared off were.
My same "friend" had earlier taken to carrying a gun--"illegally," and knowing and resenting like hell being forced to make a choice that involved risk of punishment and being treated like a criminal from those whose only legitimate function is "to secure the blessings of Liberty." He did so on advice from two police officers who were responding to a death threat against him--officers who let him know they couldn't protect him, they couldn't respond to an attack until after-the fact.
But Samuel Sutter works in an environment where he has regular police protection. Samuel Sutter has the status and connections that turn "may issue" into "shall issue."
And don't get me started on "illegal" possession of "high-capacity guns."
If it were up to Samuel Sutter, my "friend" and people like him would be dead.
Samuel Sutter is, in essence, a state-sponsored terrorist. Samuel Sutter can go to hell.
And the thing is, if the punishment is increased, so too will be the desperation of an otherwise peaceable citizen to escape the "legal" consequences. What kind of "justice" system pushes good people to the breaking point for simply defending their lives?