Nod to Ravenwood for the link.

Reuter’s reports that the Ninth Circus Circuit Court of Appeals (the most overturned Circuit in the country) has decided that if an armed criminal didn’t intend to show his weapon, that he wasn’t really armed.

“A federal appeals court has tossed out the armed bank robbery conviction of a Los Angeles man after finding that — while he admitted being armed and robbing the bank — he did not mean to show his gun to a teller while demanding money.

“The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday in a written ruling that that Odom should have been convicted of unarmed bank robbery — which carries a lesser prison term — instead of armed robbery.”

Does that mean that if Congress bans possession of “assault weapons” that I’m not really armed if I keep mine, so long as I don’t intend for anyone to know I have it?

I want to live in the Fifth Circuit. At least the majority of Justices there have brains. There’s a couple in San Francisco with reasoning ability, but they are overwhelmed by the rest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.