Major San Francisco Gun Rights Victory

“Johnny Stone was arrested Sept. 9, 2009, while visiting family members in the Sunnydale housing projects,” reports. “His attorney, Deputy Public Defender Arial Boyce-Smith, said that he had borrowed [a] gun for a trip to the car to retrieve baby food and diapers for his crying niece, after hearing gunshots in the area earlier that day. Stone testified during the trial that he had been robbed on a previous visit to the area and that a cousin had been shot on the same block.” So it’s Constitutional Carry in The People’s Republic of Kalifornia? “The defense was one of necessity,” Boyce-Smith said. “It was clear Mr. Stone took the gun solely for protection. He was acting in an emergency and it was necessary for him to have the gun to protect himself from great bodily harm.” So if you need a gun, it’s OK to carry one? My sentiments exactly. Remove the arrest, prosecution and jury part of the program and we’re good to go.


  1. avatar Ralph says:

    Why was he pinched in the first place? Was the gun visible? Was it a case of “walking while black?”

    1. avatar outwardhound says:

      Exactly my question too…unfortunately yet another example of an incomplete news report that leaves lots of room for speculation: I decline.

  2. avatar otalps says:

    This is a pretty big thing being that it happened in Frisco, the same city that voted in a handgun ban.

  3. avatar Todd AF Vet says:

    RF I think a better title would have been “San Fran my Man Acquitted On Weapons Charges After “Necessity Defense””. It is not until you read the SF Appeal article that you find this out. And I agree, coming from the Bay Area this is huge.

  4. avatar stateisevil says:

    Jury nullification. A liberty lover feels like Tantulus when discussing it. An avenue for complete freedom, but the sheep don’t want it. Plus, they believe the judges’ lies: “facts of the case only jurors.” The only thing that I wonder about is how few people seem to think. “Gee, what exactly is the point of the jury when the sole purpose is to rubber stamp the state’s decrees…oh well, I don’t carry a gun, I don’t use cannabis, I pay my taxes, etc, etc…”

  5. avatar Justin says:

    I don’t blame the fella for wanting a little protection. But the laws the laws the law. I feel his pain because I’ve been in some bad neighborhoods (Irvington, Newark, Camden, NJ) where it is illegal to carry.

  6. avatar rt66paul says:

    Sorry, but you have the right of self protection, even when using an illegal gun. The point here is proving that you were scared for your life. Even Felons have won a few cases where they were caught with a firearm. If you are being hunted by bad guys, the police will not help you, especially if you are a felon.

    Isn’t that the point of having a firearm for protection?

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      I believe in jury nullification especially when the law is an illegal encroachment on constitutional rights. This will over ride activist judges that are set on creating their own laws.

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