HB13-1043 Changing the Definition of 'Deadly Weapon'

Guys,

They got this one through quickly and quietly before the rest of them for a reason. This was the one they knew would give them the most power in the future with the least friction. The rest would draw attention.... This was 'just a definition change', who cares. It does some of the most damage. If we are out with a gun and ANYTHING happens it just got a lot easier to throw the book at us. This then allows them to make you a criminal thus unable to own your gun. Sooo they take the guns away from an individual..... but what if you are a leader, speaking for gun rights, like a Kopel (he would probably be able to defend himself) or a organizer for gun rights. You just became a lot easier target for them to not only take away you 2nd rights but also your 1st. Nobody listens to a criminal. You become a dangerous 'gun nut' crying about losing your guns. While you pay the lawyers to defend you against the BS. You might win, you might even take it to the Supreme Court. In the mean time you have been neutered as a leader while you defend yourself.

This one was targeted. Marco, I think you got it [Beer]

or it means the police can just shoot you [panic]

When I was on jury duty, the Judge told us that Assault with a Deadly weapon came with a minimum of 10 years in prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraven251

or it means the police can just shoot you [Panic]

---

I don't think this means panic. It does mean we need to add this to the discussion and get it as a main topic when the repel comes. I don't want us to fight against the rest of them and forget this one. Like I said, I am not hearing about this from anybody else and I should. Get the word out. Let Hick know this one is also not acceptable.