Begs the question, why would he then have to surrender his cache?
My inquiry does not "beg the question." Begging the question refers to a pattern of circular logic. Why is the bible correct? Because God says so. Why is God correct? Because the Bible says so. I believe you meant to say my question "lends itself to the question. . ." or some similar phrase. But I digress.
But to answer your question - when a person has a felony complaint filed against them for a many crimes they must surrender their firearms. Once again, it has nothing to do with the propensity of a person with many guns to commit crimes. Why is a person accused of rape ordered to have no contact with the accuser? HE MUST BE GUILTY!
Why did he revoke his rights to ownership of his guns?
His rights were not revoked, they were suspended. They are suspended because he has been accused of a felony. Most felons can not own firearms, thus accused felons surrender their weapons. Again, it is not an indication of guilt. Why are people accused of computer crimes ordered to surrender their computers? HE MUST BE GUILTY!
You have serious issues equating governmental action against someone with guilt.
Since the other firearms are obviously not relevant to this case, then he shouldn't have to surrender them, either voluntarily or ordered by the court. Right?
For the third time, someone accused of a violent felony has to surrender their weapons. I'm a gun advocate, but that rule even makes sense to me. Generally the State has a decent reason for accusing someone, this temporary remedial remedy is not that intrusive contrasted with the potential cost to the public of a person believed by the State to be a murderer to house firearms. Why do people accused of vehicular homicide have their licenses suspended? GUILTY.
and the only answer you're going to get is my opinion,
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. You could have saved a boat load of trouble by saying "in my opinion, the more firearms a person owns the more likely that person is to want to execute people." Which is an ignorant statement, but is safe as your opinion.
However, that opinion does not make it
relevant to the underlying issues in this case. You have yet to explain to me how the number of firearms owned makes it more or less likely that the homicide was not justified. You simply said that in your opinion peoples propensity for crime is in direct correlation to the quantity of firearms owned. Which, thankfully, is neither a statistical fact or important to the court.
which you've already read and as a gun owner you obviously don't like it. I'm not expecting you to, either. Honestly, I don't care either way,
Correct. I do not believe the ownership of firearms increases ones propensity to commit crimes. I've owned firearms my entire life and the worst crime I have ever committed is doing 55 in a 45 one time in my life. No one I know who has legally owned firearms, which means most people, has ever committed a crime involving firearms.
Gasp? 7 firearms? CRIMINAL!
1 Shotgun for sport shooting
1 Rifle for distance shooting
1 pistol for home defense/target shooting
1 .22 caliber for my son (if you have firearms in your home, your children need to understand and respect them or get rid of them)
and 3 WWII vintage rifles as collectors items.
If I were this business owner, how would that knowledge change the facts of the case? Back to the point - how does ownership of multiple firearms preclude the facts in this case from being justified homicide? Also, could you be more clear about what your opinion is?
(I don't even have are real horse in this race, I just find your bias interesting)
