Armed homeowner who defended family in driveway shoot-out says he's been stripped of gun permit

I hope he is able to sue those clowns into the poor house and strip them of their offices

 

Depends on the bullet - I ask, if we are so helpless without guns why has our gun homicide rate fallen since 1996?

 

Nope not my point at all! Thanks for displaying confirmation bias though

 

thanks for not making an effort of refuting what I said.

 

why does the USA matter so much? trust me, I don't know a single gun rights advocate that really cares about Australia. we understand we are citizens and Australians are subjects who are not trusted to own lots of firearms that we Americans own by the millions

 

Why? You were answering what you THOUGHT I wrote not the actual content

 

Ahhhh! Here we are at the Ad Homs - always know when the opposition has run out of arguments - they start with the ad homs

 

I guess the phallic comment was a figment of my imagination and that I haven't read hundreds of your anti gun posts

 

your post suggest you don't know what the term "ad hom" means. can you point out where your definition is contained in my post?

 

You mean why has it fallen since 1988.

 

Well, someone already addressed that claim very nicely.

 

Your continual attack on me for not being an American - something I am actually rather proud of

 

Is 'yelling at the police' a crime?

 

That’s what happens when you block people I suppose. Sure looks like you have no rebuttal. We can keep it that way.

 

The video does not talk about gun confiscation, it is about concealed carry, which California has a right to permit and/or revoke, based on the laws of that state. This is NOT a 2a issue, since it is reasonable to presume that he still has said firearm. Under California law, the permit can be revoked either by the California AG or the County Sherrif if the person was in violation of the concealed carry policy or statutes.

However, here is another video that sheds light. He threw tea at the perps, the perps ran, and then he drew and fired at them even though he drew in his home. Although the video agrees in generally with the OP, I take issue with his emotional response such as "the perps will come back and seek revenge, or the family will get harmed somewhere and somehow and he won't be able to protect them, etc. Then he went and tried to use his fly by night conceal carry legal arguments and for Constitutional carry. The 2a is about possession, not use. Conceal carry is about use, not possession. And somehow they think it is one in the same.

However, I do agree that the reason was petty, he yelled at LAPD officers. It is reasonable that someone is upset, but maybe the yelling at officers is also not the whole story either. So far, in both videos, I have yet to hear his name.

 

He was probably angry that the police were not documenting evidence that would be important to his defense in the event that the state decided to press criminal charges against him -- something that would be absurd but not completely surprising in that state.

In these types of places, if you get accused of something that involves a gun you used, the burden is on you to prove that it was justified.
A homeowner using a gun doesn't get as much benefit of the doubt as they do in conservative states.

I'd also imagine the homeowner wants the police to make some effort to find the perpetrators, before the criminals might decide to come back to his house.
It's perfectly understandable that he was angry if the police could not seem to be bothered to even pick up the shell casings.

 

Even those who work steal. It is called embezzlement and treated not the same legally and especially under sentencing as those who rob private individuals.

Robbery is generally a crime of opportunity. The perps thought they were easy targets, especially with his "New York accent." But he threw tea at them and that scared them enough to run. He then drew his firearm and fired while they were running. The guy's video left a lot of details out including "yelling" at LAPD officers. I think the revocation maybe was petty, but that would depend if the homeowner was not following police commands to calm down and him trying to blame LAPD and used explicatives when doing so. But until we know his name, no one will know exactly what happened.

 

No one was killed and it happened on his property with video. But there are other details out there that may explain the revokation.

Keep in mind, he threw tea at them before he drew his firearm. They were already running after he threw his tea at the perps.

 

Well, he was not charged with anything and he didn't have to prove anything.

No one appreciates people yelling at them and telling them how to do their job. Its like berating your doctor because you think you know better than him.

 

He did not really know for sure whether there was a risk that he might be charged with something, when the police came to the house and were taking the report and looking at the evidence.

Your claim "he didn't have to prove anything" is just imagined. (Maybe you seem to be confusing knowledge long after the fact with probability right after it happened)

They have taken away his concealed permit, so apparently he did have to "prove something".

 

Nope, he was not charged for using his firearm. They took his license for his hostility towards the police officers.

 

And of course progressives see nothing wrong with that?
Scream and act disrespectful towards police officers (even when you have some very understandable reason for being angry) and they'll take away your rights?

Sounds like just one more reason to be reluctant to trust government with permits.

 

Nope, not attacking you at all. Just noting that those who don't live here don't have a stake in our laws

 

and hopefully, those who revoked it will be held accountable and suffer some financial damages

 

yep, and many on the left were happy with the BLM rioters berating police officers even though the ones being berated had nothing to do with the death of St Floyd