Quote of the Day: Joe Biden, Please Call Your Office

“There are about half-a-dozen crimes where a person can be charged if they simply display or discharge their weapon. You don’t have to shoot someone to get in trouble.” – Edwin Walker in Zimmerman verdict sparks interest in insurance programs that defend gun owners [at star-telegram.com]

comments

  1. avatar Christian says:

    Someday, someone’s going to have to logically explain why having your weapon print is grounds for a lawsuit. For that matter, someone’s going to have to explain to me what’s so terrifying about guns in the first place. Unless it’s pointed at me, I don’t really care if you have one >.>

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      There is nothing to explain except for fear which is why many of the more stupid laws exist.

      In the try state area they have even hyped the fear with the 24/7 ads of “see something says something” looking for the elusive boogey man that does not exist.

      As long as there is fear about guns and there are those whom help promote the fear, the sight of a gun will make people wet their pants and give permission to politicians trying to make believe they are “doing something” to make nonsense laws.

      Far too often gun owners use analytical intelligence to plead their case, the issue is the anti-gun crowd uses some made up science and call it “emotional intelligence” — something that cannot be measured nor does science recognize to plead their case.

      Long story short, because those laws are emotional over reaction because that is the current state of society where nobody can have their feelings hurt.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Really hate to quote a Democrat and closet fascist, but:

        “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!” – FDR

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      Because many laws are simply emotional based not logical. The public safety they are trying to protect is “emotional” safety not physical safety. We live in a world where protecting feelings is more important than a person’s right.

    3. avatar Chip says:

      “For that matter, someone’s going to have to explain to me what’s so terrifying about guns in the first place.”

      Well, nothing. A gun is just a self-defense tool that gets misused by criminals (in the same way knives, baseball bats, and other weapons do). But people like to demonize that which they don’t understand and/or are irrationally afraid of. It happens with more than just guns, although guns are one of the favorite targets of the “irrational fear” crowd.

    4. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Noone said what the crimes were.

      Brandishing? Stickup? Shooting a hole in the sky at Disneyland? Letting Junior use it as pacifier?

      “I didn’t do nothin’ wrong! Pacifier, peacemaker, what’s the difference?!?”

      Also, violating any law is a “crime,” so it depends on whatever laws apply wherever one is.

      Also, I can sue someone for having light hair. I’d lose, but am free to sue. Such being the case, if some oldster has palpitations because someone besmirches his presumed GFZ (say, the entirety of NYC) then he may sue.

      May he also lose.

  2. avatar Bruce says:

    The insurance sounds like a good idea, like car or fire insurance. Maybe a little expense but if you need it, it would be very good to have. I wish there was a firm in Missouri.

      1. avatar Bruce says:

        Thanks Pascal.

  3. avatar B says:

    They sell it already. Its basically like litigation insurance. It can cover multiple states and takes into account if you have a CHL.

  4. avatar T-DOG says:

    Just as long as they don’t make this a requirement for having a concealed carry permit. Just as our state made car insurance mandatory which in my opinion did very little in cutting down on uninsured motorist.

  5. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Yea, but how many DAs out there would press charges against the wife of the Vice President of the USA?

    1. avatar Gyufygy says:

      Didn’t a DA skip the wife and go straight for VP Agnew?

  6. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    In our lives, we each lawfully carry a private firearm daily, so she and I are both covered by Mr. Walker’s law firm and its Texas Law Shield program. We’ve met Mr. Walker and his team a few times at events around Houston and, of course, at the TLS member seminars which they conduct periodically around the state. Strictly speaking, it isn’t “insurance” in the capital “I” legally defined sense of the word “Insurance.” It’s a retainer for civil and criminal legal representation, not reimbursement for a loss.

    Now, I’m not here to promote the program, as you really need to conduct your own due diligence. We’ve scrutinized all of the several major options out there, including the NRA’s plan, U.S. Concealed Carry, Second Call Defense, CHL Protection, CCW Safe and Armed Citizens Network, and determined that TLS best suits our needs. Your situation may be different.

    Regardless what program you go with, or even if you “go bare”, you should have some kind of post-Defensive Gun Use plan born of some serious thinking. If you’re just completely winging it with no forethought whatsoever, then you’re putting yourself and your family in danger comparable to that which you sought to defend against with a firearm.

  7. avatar William Burke says:

    What’s up with his face?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email