NM Mayor Bans Firearms, Citizens Arm Themselves, And Go To City Council Mtg.

[TAB]

"highly trained police"    Did you intend to be facetious, TAB?

Yes, 

[tt11758]

maybe, but maybe they are in more of a risk.  A ND can cuase alot of damage.  Just look at how well the highly trained police have done in the last month in reguards to hitting bistandards... just remember those are the ones that can legally CCW in every state...  Makes me feel safe...   


  As I said, it makes sense from a straigth liabilty point of veiw.

The question  is did he over step his powers.  I don't know the answer to that, its going to depend on NM  and thier local laws.

And you think he would face no litigational exposure if someone were wounded or killed because his order had deprived them of their ability to defend themselves? 

It's a two-edged sword, TAB.

[TAB]

And you think he would face no litigational exposure if someone were wounded or killed because his order had deprived them of their ability to defend themselves? 

It's a two-edged sword, TAB.

It does not work that way.   You would have to prove that you could have actually defended yourself.    That is a extremely hard thing to do.  Thats like getting a speeding ticket for 100 mph in a 25 mph zone and proving what you were doing was safe.   Its something that you will never be able to win in court.

[GASPASSERDELUXE]

No one has mentioned it but NM is an open carry state.

[MikeBjerum]

TAB,

I will buy into your litigation and liability BS when they install metal detectors and frisk everyone entering the property.  Until that time all they are doing is removing our Constitutional protection away from law abiding citizens and putting properly carrying citizens at risk - a risk they are prepared to handle.

As far as proving you could have handled an need if you had not been disarmed by this ruling - All your attorney and family need to prove is that you are qualified and practiced with the firearm you carry and that your training covers self defense situations.  That is no more difficult than going the other way.

[Sponsor]

[TAB]

Trust me, that won't work.  I doubt they will even let it be done.

[kmitch200]

Trust me, that won't work.  I doubt they will even let it be done.

Who's "they"?
The arguments your attorneys use in a civil trial can have a VERY wide berth.

[tombogan03884]

This is the primary subject where most of us , if not all, think TAB is an asshole.
On almost any aspect of right to carry TAB takes this sort of Ca. Kool ade  stance and nothing any one says will change his mind.
When it comes to the politics of CCW I just ignore his posts.
On technical stuff he's usually worth reading, but on this he is young and indoctrinated.

[TAB]

Who's "they"?
The arguments your attorneys use in a civil trial can have a VERY wide berth.

not unless they can back them up.  At best you could argue this, then have the judge instruct the jury, to disreguard the argument.

Think about it for a second, what argument would you use to prove that you being armed ment you could have defended yourself.

The " I'm highly trained"  deal won't work unless you can actually back that up, with out making yourself look like a gun nut/baby killer.

Now think about how you are going to counter that argument?

which is easier to do?

[Solus]

not unless they can back them up.  At best you could argue this, then have the judge instruct the jury, to disreguard the argument.

Think about it for a second, what argument would you use to prove that you being armed ment you could have defended yourself.

The " I'm highly trained"  deal won't work unless you can actually back that up, with out making yourself look like a gun nut/baby killer.

Now think about how you are going to counter that argument?

which is easier to do?

I think it could be proven that by being disarmed, your capability to defend your self was greatly reduced ...just as being tied up would reduce your chances of defending yourself.

I don't think proving that without either one your defense would have been totally successful is necessary?

By eliminating the means of defense, it made getting harmed certain.