George Zimmerman had 5 guns when arrested
 

Including an AR15-type rifle and 127 rounds of ammunition

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ed-police?lite

Zimmerman has some shit with him both literally and figuratively.

Zimmerman has become a shit magnet, but anyone who thinks 127 rounds is a lot of ammunition is seriously undereducated.

He is not a convicted felon, and is (was, and may be again depending on his next hearing) therefore entitled to own any firearms he wants. His use of them may certainly be called into question. We'll see what the courts have to say.

The court of popular opinion is not the law of the land.

^Right on. The only way I see it possibly relevant is if one of his exes has a restraining order requiring him to turn in his firearms--something I've seen before with domestic violence cases.

While this is true in a general sense when discussing the legal and criminal justice processes, this cliche' is not 100% accurate. The laws and procedures of the land are not universal truths created by robots. The laws of the land are based on the researched and nonresearched perspectives of (1) powerful people and/or (2) a consensus among citizens. There are both popular opinions and unpopular opinions in that.

People tend to forget this when they want to defend certain laws, perspectives, and behaviors. People tend to remember this when there are laws, perspectives, and behaviors they deem problematic and worth challenging. People are extremely hypocritical when it comes to what they deem worthy of either defending or attacking.

Very true. But it's the place where we work on changing the law of the land. This is relevant to a debate about what our gun laws OUGHT to be. I don't trust this guy, and I don't want him to have access to any guns, and being reminded how many he has legally is a good argument IMHO in favor of some tighter restrictions.

I deeply and passionately believe that no one should go to jail without being convicted based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But if it were up to me, a "more likely than not" standard of dangerousness ought to be enough to take somebody's firearms away.

The law (part of the Violence Against Women Act) does allow for a domestic court judge, even on an ex parte basis to temporarily seize the weapons of an abuser or an accused abuser as part of an order of protection. Simple possession in those cases can carry up to 10 years in the federal penitentiary and/or state punishment as well. I find it a little odd that Zimmerman's ex wife or his girlfriend hadn't sought a protective order considering the sort of allegations being made here... but maybe not... cycle of violence and whatnot.

At any rate, I can't imagine a judge examining a pleading naming Zimmerman as the defendant and not ordering him, at least temporarily, to surrender his firearms.

I don'[t trust Zimmerman either, but even less to I trust many of my fellow Americans to make a "more likely than not" determination. I do not want to get in to convicting someone and taking away liberties based on some possible act that someone might imagine in the future.

His life has taken a serious nose-dive since his incident with Martin. It will probably get worse before it gets better. Karma.

All I have to say is, water is wet.

VAWA lets a judge do that without a hearing. At least on a temporary basis. I don't agree that it's Constitutional either, but without researching it even a little, it seems that such a temporary order would be technically difficult to package into an appealable case.

As for Zimmerman himself having guns, those of you who think he shouldn't, the man has had his life threatened on a number of occasions by total strangers including a domestic terror group, the New Black Panthers who have put a bounty on him for citizen's arrest, whatever that means.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/03....-Who-are-they

Under those circumstances, the man really should be carrying at all times.

I agree that he has a legitimate reason to carry now. But those threats wouldn't have existed if he had been responsible previously with the use of his firearms. I don't believe in street justice, but a lot of folk are still very angry over what they see as a grave injustice in the Trayvon Martin case.

Zimmerman is the only person alive who knows the truth of that statement.

Yes, yes...we know there were two people outside and one person is dead.

Such is the case for many deaths. I find irony in that if there had been evidence to convict Zimmerman in a court of law, people would have said things such as "the eyes of the law" or "evidence allowed Trayvon to speak from the grave" in order to contrast "Zimmerman is the only person alive who knows the truth of that statement". Suddenly Zimmerman being the only person alive wouldn't matter.

I'm not saying he's innocent either. "Not guilty" and "innocent" are not one in the same. Folks still talk as if they know he's for sure guilty. What we know is he, like many Americans owns and carries guns. We also know he's been accused of domestic violence. That's still kind of key, I don't believe he's committed any acts of domestic violence, but his ex-wife might have a pecuniary interest in accusing him and the ex-girlfriend could just be looking to cash in on her association with him to to talk to 60 Minutes about what kind of person George Zimmerman is. You just don't know.

Shooting Martin may have been a perfectly reasonable and even responsible thing to do under the circumstances. I'm not saying that it was or that it's even very likely, just that we don't really know one way or the other.