Learjetter Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Good grief. Makes me WANT to be a lawyer. Proof positive that asinine gun laws (nearly ALL of them) do nothing to curb violence, but make felons of law-abiding citizens. The DA should publicly, vocally, and on national TV, decline to prosecute and relate his office will not prosecute such cases while he's in office. I have a dream... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 She's an idiot. She did everything right for transporting the firearm on her flight but neglected to research the laws of the state she was visiting. She's confused in thinking that by abiding by the airline and TSA's rules for transporting the pistol she would be able to carry it in a state that has laws against it. Actually, it's her husband who is the idiot ever telling her to bring the pistol in the first place. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it doesn't matter if you bake cookies for the girl scouts or anything else, break the law and expect to be arrested. Her only hope is that the DA or court will be lenient on her, but there is no excuse for what she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 She's an idiot. She did everything right for transporting the firearm on her flight but neglected to research the laws of the state she was visiting. She's confused in thinking that by abiding by the airline and TSA's rules for transporting the pistol she would be able to carry it in a state that has laws against it. Actually, it's her husband who is the idiot ever telling her to bring the pistol in the first place. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it doesn't matter if you bake cookies for the girl scouts or anything else, break the law and expect to be arrested. Her only hope is that the DA or court will be lenient on her, but there is no excuse for what she did. True, but New York's gun laws are unconstitutional anyway. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 True, but New York's gun laws are unconstitutional anyway. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand? They've been upheld by the court and until such time as they are overturned, they still stand. Her excuse that she "did not intentionally or knowingly break any laws" doesn't hold ground. That removes intent or premeditation, but it doesn't relieve her from knowing and abiding by the laws of the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFreddie Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Too bad they wouldn't hold the media to the same standards... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 She's an idiot. Just out of curiosity, M2...if the woman knew all the local/State laws and and in full knowledge of what she was doing still decided to bring the firearm, would you still call her (and/or her husband) an idiot? Humor me with an answer if you wouldn't mind. On a different note, for those who haven't seen it: http://www.washingto...ulation-treaty/ U.N. passes sweeping international arms regulation viewed by some as Second Amendment override Though a treaty would have to be advised/consented by two-thirds of the Senate, which is extremely doubtful, I wonder how much this will affect sales of firearms like Glocks, Saiga AK's, Wolf ammo, etc? Just because it wouldn't affect sales and ownership here in the US, it could very well affect importation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Helo Yes, although I would consider that to be especially stupid. I go TDY to a lot states where I cannot carry, and since my preference is to steer clear of going to prison, I abide by the laws whether I agree with them or not. A convicted felon can't own firearms. Hell, a convicted felon cannot even touch a firearm. Her (and apparantly his) ignorance have put her in a situation where there stands a chance that she will be convicted felon. She's not the first person to have this happen and I doubt she will be the last; but anyone who doesn't take the time and effort to adequately research the laws of any state that they may be traveling to is asking for similar trouble, trouble that could be easily avoided if they do a little homework first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) Quick question for you guys that do carry concealed...what type of holster setup do you use? My wife and I are both going to go to the concealed carry course here in AR so I'm wondering what you guys have found that works for you. Crossbreed all the way, the price is worth it IMHO, I searched long and hard for a good CC holster, it was hard cause I'm a tall wiry guy, and with many it was fairly obvious I was carrying and uncomfortable for me. The crossbreed holster sits very comfortably and I hardly ever notice I'm wearing. Have been carrying with it everyday for over a year and a half with no problems. There are many similar holsters but crossbreeds service and quality are hard to beat. Edited April 2, 2013 by Fuzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 My question to you was a moral one, though not too far off what we have actually seen in recent times in this country...Rosa Parks broke the law and I don't think many people, af least today, would call her an 'idiot'. Again, if this woman in the story above knowingly did what she did--at what point are people going to stop calling it 'idiotic' and start calling it 'courageous'? I think it's a fair question in light of what we're seeing today. If Sen Feinstein had her way, her bill would make you a criminal by not registering your firearms. To me, it all comes down on where you stand and what you either are or are not willing to risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CannonCrashPad Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 You bring up a good point HD. If the standard is to obey unconstitutional laws, and those who don't obey unconstitutional laws are to be considered idiots, and had many in this nation gotten their way and banned effective home defense weapons (ie "assault weapons"), then would those who choose not to dutifully hand over their constitutionally protected weapons be idiots? If they, for example, hid their weapons and claimed they lost them in a boating accident? Does it make a person an idiot to claim their constitutionally protected rights in the face of a government (be it legislator or judiciary) bent on annihilating them? Or as you ask, does displaying uncommon courage to protect sacred rights make a person a good American? Shall not be infringed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 My question to you was a moral one, though not too far off what we have actually seen in recent times in this country...Rosa Parks broke the law and I don't think many people, af least today, would call her an 'idiot'. Again, if this woman in the story above knowingly did what she did--at what point are people going to stop calling it 'idiotic' and start calling it 'courageous'? I think it's a fair question in light of what we're seeing today. If Sen Feinstein had her way, her bill would make you a criminal by not registering your firearms. To me, it all comes down on where you stand and what you either are or are not willing to risk. Do you really think this lady did this with the forethought of changing the law? It doesn't appear so. It was done out of ignorance, and as we all know that is no justification for breaking the law. As for NY's gun laws, of course I think they are unConstitutional. I know what "shall not be infringed" means but apparently bigger brains than mine have ruled otherwise. Did she have criminal intent? No. Does that means she gets away with breaking the law? No. I hope the DA is understanding and works out a plea bargain that reduces her charges to a misdemeanor if not dismissed entirely; but by no means do I excuse what she did because of her ignorance. If life where as black and white as that, there would be zero gun restrictions in this country; but we all know what the reality is... And comparing her to Rosa Parks? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Do you really think this lady did this with the forethought of changing the law? It doesn't appear so. It was done out of ignorance, and as we all know that is no justification for breaking the law. Hence why I gave the adjusted scenario. Is it that hard to imagine that someone would disobey the law because they believed it to unConstituional? It has happened before. ...but apparently bigger brains than mine have ruled otherwise. Bigger voices, bigger organizations, and bigger pocketbooks...not bigger brains. And comparing her to Rosa Parks? Seriously? If she 'had' knowingly did it because she believed she has a Constituional Right, then yes, seriously. Else, where is the line drawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 You are making more out of this than it is, my friend. You know I am very pro-gun and think the NY laws are ridiculous and unConstitutional; but the lady in question simply didn't do her homework. I don't think she is a hardened criminal but I also don't think she has a defense to prosecution with the story she tells. She blatantly admits she didn't know the laws and whether that will be accepted as an excuse has yet to be seen... But sorry, in this case it was a matter of pure ignorance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 More economic consequences for Colorado's stupidity and liberalism: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/01/hiviz-shooting-systems-leaving-colorado-credits-state-gun-laws/ HiViz Shooting Systems (a division of North Pass Ltd.), announces plans to relocate operations out of the state of Colorado due to recent changes in Colorado state gun control legislation. HiViz President and CEO, Phillip Howe, states that talks are currently under way with officials of a neighboring state regarding the move. Good on 'em. Another company that I already buy and happy to continue supporting 'em. C'mon, Colt, say adios to Connecticut! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raimius Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Shouldn't that lady be protected by FOPA?...at least if she didn't stay someplace in NY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 C'mon, Colt, say adios to Connecticut! And 'Howdy!' to Texas! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Shouldn't that lady be protected by FOPA?...at least if she didn't stay someplace in NY? FOPA provides for passages through states only allowing for short stops (gas, eating, etc.). The article states she spent time in NY to visit her husband while he was on leave. A similar incident happened a while back to an individual who was delayed overnight in NJ. He got his luggage (with the firearm inside), left the airport to spend a night in a hotel, and was arrested upon his return. http://www.foxnews.c...-supreme-court/ The Supreme Court denied Revell's petition to sue Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police for arresting him on illegal possession of a firearm in New Jersey and for not returning his gun and ammunition to him for more than three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HU&W Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Her biggest problem is that NY defines a gun as "loaded" if the bullets are stored with it. She had the bullets in the same case as the gun. Clean kill, but I don't personally agree with the law constitutionally or as a responsible former gun owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CannonCrashPad Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Her biggest problem is that NY defines a gun as "loaded" if the bullets are stored with it. She had the bullets in the same case as the gun. Clean kill, but I don't personally agree with the law constitutionally or as a responsible former gun owner. Reminds me of Madison's statement that, "It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." It has been said that most all of us break a law every day without knowing it. http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6-laws-youve-broken-without-even-realizing-it.html Regardless of how well, or how poorly, a citizen researches the layers of unconstitutional law, I personally find it much more concerning that there are laws that are unconstitutional, and can't fault a person who doesn't take time out of their busy day to research laws that are clearly illegal. If you know them to be illegal, and if you care, then you might as well behave as though they don't exist. That's what those who truly care do. And when arrested, they take the opportunity to energize the third branch of government to get bad laws hopefully struck down. If people thought it was smart to obey laws that rob them of their American birthright, then we'd have no use for that third branch, or the Constitution, since such obedience in the name of being "smart" would be all that tyranny could hope for. I hope she goes the distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I picked this up a few weeks ago for my Kindle when it was being offered for free, and it's actually a pretty good e-book for anyone looking to purchase their first pistol. Handgun Boot Camp Whereas there are a few points that I don't necessarily agree with, for the most part it does a pretty comprehensive job in educating someone who has no experience with firearms on buying and shooting their first handgun. I am happy to see that the necessarily emphasis on safety is there, and the entire book is written in a relaxed, easy-to-understand manner. So if you know of anyone contemplating their first pistol, or even want to encourage someone to get into shooting, I highly recommend this for them. Cheers! M2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Rumor mill on another site I frequent is that ammo sales may soon be restricted/regulated due to the Interstate Commerce Clause. Liberals now think they can bypass the Second Amendment by making ammunition nearly impossible to acquire (See CT's new laws). Could be tinfoil hat stuff, but it's probably not going away anytime soon. The Dems are desperate to deflect attention away from their stagnant economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Rumor mill on another site I frequent is that ammo sales may soon be restricted/regulated due to the Interstate Commerce Clause. Liberals now think they can bypass the Second Amendment by making ammunition nearly impossible to acquire (See CT's new laws). Could be tinfoil hat stuff, but it's probably not going away anytime soon. The Dems are desperate to deflect attention away from their stagnant economy. After the Obamacare craziness we've seen over the past 3 years, from it being passed without a single vote from the opposition party and the 'tax vs interstate commerce' clown show in the SCOTUS, not much surprises me when it comes to what the Dems will try and pull. That being said, right now the Dems don't even have enough votes in their own party to pass much of any new gun restrictions in the Senate, much less the House. So unless I'm mistaken, unless the ATF has the power to do what you're suggesting on their own without an Act of Congress, then I don't see anything like this happening anytime soon. ...I agree this is what they want to do though. Just look at CA, NY, and CT for examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 A great read... A Mother's Journey to Bearing Arms 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 If you haven't seen these 2 new short videos, you're definitely missing out...what an idiot. And she is one of the few who is allowed to write and vote on laws. http://www.realclear...e_reloaded.html and this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10percenttruth Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 That old man should have told her "see you next Tuesday" That shit is infuriating 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now