Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Minnesota

OldBaldy1701E

(6,862 posts)

1. Hmm...

Reply to WhiskeyGrinder (Original post)

Sat Apr 8, 2023, 05:00 PM

Apr 2023

“The statute at issue in this case is a strict liability statute, meaning that the possessor’s intent isn’t an element of the crime. Rather, if a prohibited person is in possession of a firearm or ammunition, whether they intend to or not, they have violated the statute.”

Gee, I wonder why it was written that way?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Duluth NAACP demands dismissal of man's gun charge [View all] WhiskeyGrinder Apr 2023 OP

Hmm... OldBaldy1701E Apr 2023 #1

It would take a huge asshole to prosecute that. Chainfire Apr 2023 #2

It wouldn't have to be a mess if the County Attorney showed some common sense dflprincess Apr 2023 #3

Indeed. Duluth is in a fight for its soul. PlutosHeart Apr 2023 #4

Common sense sarisataka Apr 2023 #5

Here's a petition geardaddy Apr 2023 #6