|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: Shopper tackles man with gun at Wal-Mart
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Lithia man has been charged after he tackled another man Tuesday who had a handgun in a holster -- and a permit to carry -- at a Wal-Mart.
About 11:58 a.m., deputies responded to the store at 11110 Causeway Blvd. where Clarence Daniels had been taken to the ground by Michael Foster, according to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office.
Foster had seen Daniels getting out of his vehicle in the lot with handgun, under his coat and in a holster. Foster followed him into the store and then attacked the Daniels, the sheriff's office said. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(1/21/2015)
|
| Wouldn't he have felt like an even bigger turd if that guy had had a badge on his belt on the other side? |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/21/2015)
|
| Seems this Foster has just volunteered to be charged with assault, attempted theft of a weapon, and risking a catastrophe, at the very least. And this rude impetuous individual ought to be profoundly thankful his victim didn't shoot him. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
