I'm not looking to argue with you for the sake of an argument, and I respect all you do for this cause in Connecticut. But I don't appreciate being attacked because you don't agree with my opinion. People who don't have, or ever plan to have a lawyer on retainer are winning as of this moment.
First, you are not being attacked at all. Everyone here is free to debate as they feel necessary. If anything has been 'attacked' it is your argument. That is what happens on forums.
Second, you are giving advice and intermittently calling it opinion. They are not the same thing. Advice being the action of giving information or recommending a course of action.
If I were to give someone information or recommend a course of action to someone, I wouldn't expect them to listen to me unless I had at least some empirical evidence on the subject I am giving recommendations on. Therefore, I would be sure to have some sort of reasoning to back it up with. Legal advice is not usually given from a position of feeling or emotion, but rather it is based on the statutes or upon case law.
And that is what I asked you for. Some sort of information that backs up your feelings. I don't consider that a heavy burden.
Third, no one is asking you to prove a negative. If you asked /me/ to prove that people don't get it (either topic) used against them, that would be proving a negative and would indeed be invalid.
If you have no information to share on the subject, that is fine, your opinion is certainly welcome. I do not take your original post as your opinion though. Not when you give it as legal advice.
In summary, you make two relevant points which have been given counterpoints:
- You feel an attorney that has been retained or has some pre defined contract with you might be used against you by a prosecutor.
-- You have received a reply that it is not probable that this information could be used at all in court since it would violate attorney client privilege.
-- No one has cited a single case where someone has had this used against them.
- You feel openly carrying a full size firearm could be used against you in court.
-- It has been argued that if this were brought up, it would likely fail and that open carrying a full sized pistol is what police officers do. Police officers are commonly used as reference points for 'reasonable' self defense shootings.
-- It has been argued that there are two different points to concealed carry and open carrying. Concealed carry can be perceived as less honest, and it can be looked at as trying to 'ambush' someone. Open carry can easily be argued to be a deterrent by a law abiding citizen who simply wants to go on their way and doesn't want any criminal activity occurring around them.
-- Carrying a firearm with shorter sights, less capacity, less power and potentially less accuracy can be argued as a potential liability to the safety of yourself and those around you should you be in the situation where you need to use the firearm. It can be argued that the need to protect yourself is not being taken seriously.
-- No one has cited a single case where someone has had this used against them.