- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,834
I always felt like "precautionary self-defense" should count as a "legitimate purpose," but it almost never does in the eyes of the law. I know, the aforementioned biker could use that to evade prosecution. I don't want the biker's getting away with stuff, but shouldn't we prosecute said biker for threatening or hurting people with that padlock-bandana, instead of just carrying it? I feel like so many weapon laws were made out of "spite" to get gang members (i.e. X gang carries this item, so lets ban it so we can arrest them). It seems like a dumb motivation for legislation, and if you think back over history to the periods when they wrote these laws, a surprising number seem to have been written for that purpose.
many would say that waiting for that is too late.
but i see your point. we know gangs use intimidation for a variety of crimes, but victims are not always willing to prosecute for fear of reprisal and/or further intimidation.
and i have no problem with laws created to spite gang members. for example, gang injunctions can be an effective tool in dealing with the issue.