Yes. It's not assault if a reasonable person could assume the rifle posed no threat.
Yes. It's not assault if a reasonable person could assume the rifle posed no threat.
Is that case law, or actual statutory language? It's interesting that the law would contradict one of the fundamental rules of gun safety.
Is that case law, or actual statutory language? It's interesting that the law would contradict one of the fundamental rules of gun safety.
The law doesn't contradict "gun safety".
You can't be assaulted unless you are physically touched in a manner that a reasonable person would be offensive, or put in a situation where a reasonable person would feel threatened with bodily injury.
The law doesn't contradict "gun safety".
You can't be assaulted unless you are physically touched in a manner that a reasonable person would be offensive, or put in a situation where a reasonable person would feel threatened with bodily injury.
The law doesn't contradict "gun safety".
It absolutely and unequivocally does. The first law of gun safety is to treat every gun as if it's loaded. This alleged law says to disregard that.
> The law doesn't contradict "gun safety".
It absolutely and unequivocally does. The first law of gun safety is to treat every gun as if it's loaded. This alleged law says to disregard that.
(post is archived)