User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:00:40 PM EDT
[#1]
OC crowd is a bunch of puckwads.
Rot in jail you loser asshole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:01:49 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's poke the fire here a little. Let's say you are home, and look out on the sidewalk, and 4 Black Panthers are standing around marching up and down in front of your home with AR-15's and AK 47's, maybe even a billy club or two. Your wife and kids are on the way home from picking them up at school. You going to make them coffee? You going to call the cops? You going to confront them? After all, they ARE on public property exercising their constitutional rights! The problem with sense these days is it is not so COMMON! What are the cops going to do if they're breaking no law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:02:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the officer asked him "can you tell me the specifics of the case" at which point they guy chokes on gold fringe. The officer was rightfully trying to determine if this could conflict with legal business at the federal courthouse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WA is very straight forward when it comes to open carry. Every department in the state is well informed about it at this point. He might be a douche, but he was well within his rights with his actions. The officers were wrong. If he wants to intimidate witnesses or support intergalactic voting rights on WA property, that's probably a WA issue. If he chooses to do so on federal property, then that becomes an issue for the feds and federal law. While there are specific laws specifically forbidding firearms inside federal buildings, there are other aspects of the US Code regarding interfering with witnesses and so forth - the guy sounded like he was making reference to an ongoing case and that's problematic. It did not sound like he was reference to an ongoing case. The DHS scholar asks if he's making a 2dAm statement and he replies that they are actually there to support a group for the 10thAm. If it is legal to carry arms in that place (no one has cited any law that says it's not) and it's legal to protest there, it's legal to carry arms there while protesting. There would have to be witnesses present for someone to interfere with a witness. Note, please, that he was not arrested for witness intimidation or anything of the sort, but was arrested under a statute that does not criminalize his conduct. And the officer asked him "can you tell me the specifics of the case" at which point they guy chokes on gold fringe. The officer was rightfully trying to determine if this could conflict with legal business at the federal courthouse. By arresting him when he broke no law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:02:56 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's poke the fire here a little. Let's say you are home, and look out on the sidewalk, and 4 Black Panthers are standing around marching up and down in front of your home with AR-15's and AK 47's, maybe even a billy club or two. Your wife and kids are on the way home from picking them up at school. You going to make them coffee? You going to call the cops? You going to confront them? After all, they ARE on public property exercising their constitutional rights! The problem with sense these days is it is not so COMMON! I'm guessing it wouldn't take more than me standing at my front door and saying 1 word to get them to be at my doorstep and then we have a whole different ballgame. 
But I live in the country and my house is not viewable from the road and I don't have to see shenanigans like that. If I can see it from my door then they are close enough that I am well within my rights to force them to leave. To answer your question they are not breaking the law so the cops could and should not do a thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:03:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
18 U.S. Code § 930 (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WA is very straight forward when it comes to open carry. Every department in the state is well informed about it at this point. He might be a douche, but he was well within his rights with his actions. The officers were wrong. If he wants to intimidate witnesses or support intergalactic voting rights on WA property, that's probably a WA issue. If he chooses to do so on federal property, then that becomes an issue for the feds and federal law. While there are specific laws specifically forbidding firearms inside federal buildings, there are other aspects of the US Code regarding interfering with witnesses and so forth - the guy sounded like he was making reference to an ongoing case and that's problematic. It did not sound like he was reference to an ongoing case. The DHS scholar asks if he's making a 2dAm statement and he replies that they are actually there to support a group for the 10thAm. If it is legal to carry arms in that place (no one has cited any law that says it's not) and it's legal to protest there, it's legal to carry arms there while protesting. There would have to be witnesses present for someone to interfere with a witness. Note, please, that he was not arrested for witness intimidation or anything of the sort, but was arrested under a statute that does not criminalize his conduct. 18 U.S. Code § 930 (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building. The power to prohibit is not the power to criminalize. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:07:42 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shall not be infringed is what it should be. But, we have folks who look for attention and act surprised when they get it. ETA: watched. He was in the right, but he could have walked away and made his case at a later time. He chose the hard way. If you just turn and walk away every time your dog shits on the carpet there's always going to be shit on your carpet. If you want LEO to follow the law vs "do it because I said so" then it's going to take people like this guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:09:44 PM EDT
[#7]
He is an idiot. He was given the chance to leave Federal Property and go to City Property, the sidewalk by the street, and he chose not to leave.
I doubt he gets paid. Neither a cop or a lawyer but, I believe they can detain you without charging you for 24 hours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:10:46 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, Black Panthers with billy clubs standing in front of polling places ... they're just exercising their 2nd amendment rights? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No wonder gun owners are f*cked. Even our own will eat one another. <sarcasm> That guy has no reason to be open carrying! That idiot! Who does he think he is exercising his "right"!?</sarcasm> Don't bring a gun to a federal courthouse and tell officials that you are there in support/opposition to some specific case. I forgot about the Federal exemptions to rights. Sorry. So, Black Panthers with billy clubs standing in front of polling places ... they're just exercising their 2nd amendment rights? Wow. I never noticed that you jumped all into these threads and took them over. The more you know. Why does it upset you so much? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:10:52 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He is an idiot. He was given the chance to leave Federal Property and go to City Property, the sidewalk by the street, and he chose not to leave. I doubt he gets paid. Neither a cop or a lawyer but, I believe they can detain you without charging you for 24 hours. That power presumably comes with a probable cause that you violated an actual law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:11:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So it was legal for him to do so, but he was arrested anyways? And some here support his arrest?  Yep, the same folks who use the phrase "I don't need a gun that sprays bullets all over the woods to hunt" I would imagine. I can understand "stop and question" being outside a federal .gov building there is the potential for shenanigans being afoot, but the arrest was wrong. He is also an attention whore who got attention. The takeaway is, the .gov fucked up though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:12:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That power presumably comes with a probable cause that you violated an actual law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He is an idiot. He was given the chance to leave Federal Property and go to City Property, the sidewalk by the street, and he chose not to leave. I doubt he gets paid. Neither a cop or a lawyer but, I believe they can detain you without charging you for 24 hours. That power presumably comes with a probable cause that you violated an actual law. Shhhhh. He even gave a disclaimer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:16:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So it was legal for him to do so, but he was arrested anyways? And some here support his arrest? Yep... some amongst like to lick boots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:25:11 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shhhhh. He even gave a disclaimer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He is an idiot. He was given the chance to leave Federal Property and go to City Property, the sidewalk by the street, and he chose not to leave. I doubt he gets paid. Neither a cop or a lawyer but, I believe they can detain you without charging you for 24 hours. That power presumably comes with a probable cause that you violated an actual law. Shhhhh. He even gave a disclaimer. 18 usc 930 part F. Looks clear to me. Guy was given the chance to leave. The bit about when he was in custody is a he said she said situation. This whole Patriot Act anti terrorism thing gave the state too much power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:26:17 PM EDT
[#14]
Looks to me like more thugs guys with badges pushing citizens around. And the fact that they released him with no charges pretty much confirms that.
ETA: These agents weren't thugs, they were professional. They were just wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:31:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Gold fringe all up in this piece!
Definitely not any SC wackadoodles in the greater Spokane area. Nope, not a one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:35:36 PM EDT
[#16]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:35:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep... some amongst like to lick boots. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So it was legal for him to do so, but he was arrested anyways? And some here support his arrest? Yep... some amongst like to lick boots. It must be akin to beaten women that won't leave their man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:38:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OC crowd is a bunch of puckwads. Rot in jail you loser asshole. "Carry your fucking gun. " Irony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:42:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep... some amongst like to lick boots. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So it was legal for him to do so, but he was arrested anyways? And some here support his arrest? Yep... some amongst like to lick boots. some CCW folks are just selfish, their thinking is as long as they can CCW so they are covered, don't poke the bear please, they are not really true pro 2A as long as it's legal to do so, OC has just as much right as CCW |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:44:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
18 usc 930 part F. Looks clear to me. Guy was given the chance to leave. The bit about when he was in custody is a he said she said situation. This whole Patriot Act anti terrorism thing gave the state too much power. Quote HistoryQuoted:
18 usc 930 part F. Looks clear to me. Guy was given the chance to leave. The bit about when he was in custody is a he said she said situation. This whole Patriot Act anti terrorism thing gave the state too much power. I see you don't actually know and are just parroting what someone else said. Let's read more of 18 USC 930. Specifically part that makes it illegal and not part that clarifies the scope: (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. Is it your opinion that the gentleman was "in a federal facility" at the time of his arrest? Code text |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:46:51 PM EDT
[#21]
Was he on federal property or city?
ETA - checked the Eastern District of Washington Rules and General Orders and didn;t find any references to "grounds", just the building. Not excusing what sounds to me Miranda violations out the yin yang, but those violations may actually have contributed more to his release than any single person's sudden realization "Hey, there's a Second Amendment to that Constitution thing....". If the situation was as described and they'd charged him? Then it's paycheck time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:48:43 PM EDT
[#22]
If you do stupid shit, stupid shit's going to happen to you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:49:01 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure if kwikrnu v. Milky Way Galaxy is applicable in this instance, but it's worth a look. OK... I didn't read the rest of the thread yet, but you win the internet today. I laughed hard on this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:49:49 PM EDT
[#24]
Lived in Spokane, open carried more than once. Here's a hint...it's legal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:49:54 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Question. So lets say he carries a rifle, slung, around the outside of the property. Nothing happens. LE looks at him, maybe waves and then ignores him. What has been accomplished? They "learned their lesson" not to mess with him? The people who drove past and most likely didn't even notice he had a firearm are taught what...? The masses are safer because he was ignored? Lets stipulate to it being legal. Whats the point? Attention? Exercising his rights? Okay. Could have done that at the piggly wiggly...it looks and smells of attention-whoring.... Just askin'... you know how people get comfortable with things the more they are exposed to them? how about the general public gets comfortable with gun owners open carrying when they see cops acknowledging peoples' 2A rights rather than perpetuating the idea that every person with a gun in public means to harm those around.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:51:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
18 U.S. Code § 930 (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WA is very straight forward when it comes to open carry. Every department in the state is well informed about it at this point. He might be a douche, but he was well within his rights with his actions. The officers were wrong. If he wants to intimidate witnesses or support intergalactic voting rights on WA property, that's probably a WA issue. If he chooses to do so on federal property, then that becomes an issue for the feds and federal law. While there are specific laws specifically forbidding firearms inside federal buildings, there are other aspects of the US Code regarding interfering with witnesses and so forth - the guy sounded like he was making reference to an ongoing case and that's problematic. It did not sound like he was reference to an ongoing case. The DHS scholar asks if he's making a 2dAm statement and he replies that they are actually there to support a group for the 10thAm. If it is legal to carry arms in that place (no one has cited any law that says it's not) and it's legal to protest there, it's legal to carry arms there while protesting. There would have to be witnesses present for someone to interfere with a witness. Note, please, that he was not arrested for witness intimidation or anything of the sort, but was arrested under a statute that does not criminalize his conduct. 18 U.S. Code § 930 (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building. the Irony of this US CODE is that it possibly tramples all over WA CODE regarding carrying of firearms. maybe that was the 10A point he was trying to make? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:53:42 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you just turn and walk away every time your dog shits on the carpet there's always going to be shit on your carpet. If you want LEO to follow the law vs "do it because I said so" then it's going to take people like this guy. he is an hero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:53:47 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you know how people get comfortable with things the more they are exposed to them? how about the general public gets comfortable with gun owners open carrying when they see cops acknowledging peoples' 2A rights rather than perpetuating the idea that every person with a gun in public means to harm those around.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Question. So lets say he carries a rifle, slung, around the outside of the property. Nothing happens. LE looks at him, maybe waves and then ignores him. What has been accomplished? They "learned their lesson" not to mess with him? The people who drove past and most likely didn't even notice he had a firearm are taught what...? The masses are safer because he was ignored? Lets stipulate to it being legal. Whats the point? Attention? Exercising his rights? Okay. Could have done that at the piggly wiggly...it looks and smells of attention-whoring.... Just askin'... you know how people get comfortable with things the more they are exposed to them? how about the general public gets comfortable with gun owners open carrying when they see cops acknowledging peoples' 2A rights rather than perpetuating the idea that every person with a gun in public means to harm those around.... +1 his view is very much like anti's view of gun owners, why do you need guns? Whats the point? Attention?... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:55:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you know how people get comfortable with things the more they are exposed to them? how about the general public gets comfortable with gun owners open carrying when they see cops acknowledging peoples' 2A rights rather than perpetuating the idea that every person with a gun in public means to harm those around.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Question. So lets say he carries a rifle, slung, around the outside of the property. Nothing happens. LE looks at him, maybe waves and then ignores him. What has been accomplished? They "learned their lesson" not to mess with him? The people who drove past and most likely didn't even notice he had a firearm are taught what...? The masses are safer because he was ignored? Lets stipulate to it being legal. Whats the point? Attention? Exercising his rights? Okay. Could have done that at the piggly wiggly...it looks and smells of attention-whoring.... Just askin'... you know how people get comfortable with things the more they are exposed to them? how about the general public gets comfortable with gun owners open carrying when they see cops acknowledging peoples' 2A rights rather than perpetuating the idea that every person with a gun in public means to harm those around.... Been a couple times where I walked to the hunting area, rifle slung, pistol belt with knives. The safety vest (required when actually hunting) in the pack. Along county, city, and state roads. Never had any issues. Can understand the OCT folks getting worked up for the simple fact that there is nothing wrong with doing so. And yet, even I think they get stupid about it, at times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:55:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Interrogation?
He should not have said anything to them other than "Fuck You". That should be the answer to every question for hours on end. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:59:21 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was he on federal property or city? Not excusing what sounds to me Miranda violations out the yin yang, but those violations may actually have contributed more to his release than any single person's sudden realization "Hey, there's a Second Amendment to that Constitution thing....". If the situation was as described and they'd charged him? Then it's paycheck time. I suspect he was released because some literate person told the buffoons who arrested him what 18 USC s.930 actually says. False Arrest is actionable whether the victim is charged or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:59:40 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interrogation? He should not have said anything to them other than "Fuck You". That should be the answer to every question for hours on end. If they are questioning you about a crime, refuse to let you leave and refuse you access to counsel after you specifically invoked your right to it? I wouldn't even bother with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:00:29 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryGot that stupid song in my head now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:22:59 PM EDT
[#34]
I would say it depends is the property the federal building is on is it exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, or does the gov have just proprietary jurisdiction (doesnt accept any criminal jurisdiction over it) Also you are dealing with different agencies there a uniformed division and the US Marshal it was the Marshall who hooked him up probably could use Title 18 USC 111 articulate the facts couldnt see what the Marshal saw since wife was filming the popo until the detention, The uniform division may or may not have the 111 authority I am guessing not though. ..It will be interesting to see my guess is guy ends up on a list and gets nothing out of it....Also guess is he wasnt detained for the weapon exclusively though that played into and made the rest easy to the Marshal totality of the circumstances.....hence the statement by the FBI of further charges possible...who knows though see how it plays out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:25:21 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OC crowd is a bunch of puckwads. Rot in jail you loser asshole. And fuck his Miranda rights too! 
SMH |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:26:42 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of all of the rifles to carry, an AK? Seriously? He wanted to get detained. That. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:27:49 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DHS is at the top of the list of agencies we need to get rid of You know (then again, apparently, you don't know), DHS isn't just DHS. Those particular guys were Federal Protective Service, and they are basically security for federal buildings. The fellow in the shirt with the little 5-pointed star in a circle who actually arrested the "2A" guy was a Deputy US Marshal (not DHS, but DOJ). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:28:22 PM EDT
[#38]
IBTL.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:32:27 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It did not sound like he was reference to an ongoing case. The DHS scholar asks if he's making a 2dAm statement and he replies that they are actually there to support a group for the 10thAm. If it is legal to carry arms in that place (no one has cited any law that says it's not) and it's legal to protest there, it's legal to carry arms there while protesting. There would have to be witnesses present for someone to interfere with a witness. Note, please, that he was not arrested for witness intimidation or anything of the sort, but was arrested under a statute that does not criminalize his conduct. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WA is very straight forward when it comes to open carry. Every department in the state is well informed about it at this point. He might be a douche, but he was well within his rights with his actions. The officers were wrong. If he wants to intimidate witnesses or support intergalactic voting rights on WA property, that's probably a WA issue. If he chooses to do so on federal property, then that becomes an issue for the feds and federal law. While there are specific laws specifically forbidding firearms inside federal buildings, there are other aspects of the US Code regarding interfering with witnesses and so forth - the guy sounded like he was making reference to an ongoing case and that's problematic. It did not sound like he was reference to an ongoing case. The DHS scholar asks if he's making a 2dAm statement and he replies that they are actually there to support a group for the 10thAm. If it is legal to carry arms in that place (no one has cited any law that says it's not) and it's legal to protest there, it's legal to carry arms there while protesting. There would have to be witnesses present for someone to interfere with a witness. Note, please, that he was not arrested for witness intimidation or anything of the sort, but was arrested under a statute that does not criminalize his conduct. Yeah the law the FPS guy quoted applies to inside the court building, so he may have thought he was right, but I'm pretty sure the AUSA told them they had nothing, and to flush the case. AUSA here in Tucson won't take anything but a slam dunk. God forbid they actually have to lawyer. All they want is a plea, so they get the stat of a conviction. ETA: I missed the subsection (f) that the other folks here have addressed. That's pretty much a catch-all because the chief justice / senior judge in that district is basically God on courthouse grounds and has broad leeway to make local regulations. Hence, the contempt of court language in that subsection. Who knows, aside from those who were there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:52:32 PM EDT
[#40]
The guy was there protesting a marijuana trial. He had an ak and g17, his wife had an AR and his kids had .22s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:52:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Victim is likely a dipshit, but the DHS shitheads should be fired, arrested, and tried, for ignorance and making a false arrest, and jailed for battery and false imprisonment. FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:54:57 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Victim is likely a dipshit, but the DHS shitheads should be fired, arrested, and tried, for ignorance and making a false arrest, and jailed for battery and false imprisonment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Victim is likely a dipshit, but the DHS shitheads should be fired, arrested, and tried, for ignorance and making a false arrest, and jailed for battery and false imprisonment. FIFY ETA: And the part from the OP that damns them is this: they told him that he would not be speaking to a lawyer of any kind, let alone one of his choosing. The idea of access to legal counsel as secured by the Constitution, he was told, was "Hollywood stuff.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 7:14:24 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see you don't actually know and are just parroting what someone else said. Let's read more of 18 USC 930. Specifically part that makes it illegal and not part that clarifies the scope: Is it your opinion that the gentleman was "in a federal facility" at the time of his arrest? Code text Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
18 usc 930 part F. Looks clear to me. Guy was given the chance to leave. The bit about when he was in custody is a he said she said situation. This whole Patriot Act anti terrorism thing gave the state too much power. I see you don't actually know and are just parroting what someone else said. Let's read more of 18 USC 930. Specifically part that makes it illegal and not part that clarifies the scope: (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. Is it your opinion that the gentleman was "in a federal facility" at the time of his arrest? Code text he was in the area cited in the other code section. Notice the one you posted says "other than a Federal Court Facility" In any , as an EXAMPLE, may not be the same in other states 836. (a) A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following circumstances occur: (1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer’s presence. When the law says Thou shalt not carry in the courthouse or the grounds attached thereto" And some bozo brings a gun on to said grounds, and gives a knucklehead answer, most people will believe they have probable cause to detain or arrest for suspicion of breaking the Federal Code section quoted back up there someplace. He isn't going to get any money. You aren't going to find a jury to find favorably on his behalf, let alone award big bucks |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 7:18:59 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building. So how "appurtenant" do you have to be? On the property leased or owned by the gov? Within 100 feet? Within 100 miles? Who decides that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 7:21:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure if kwikrnu v. Milky Way Galaxy is applicable in this instance, but it's worth a look. lol. how is he doing these days? he is by far an expert level troll in real life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 7:31:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they are questioning you about a crime, refuse to let you leave and refuse you access to counsel after you specifically invoked your right to it? I wouldn't even bother with that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Interrogation? He should not have said anything to them other than "Fuck You". That should be the answer to every question for hours on end. If they are questioning you about a crime, refuse to let you leave and refuse you access to counsel after you specifically invoked your right to it? I wouldn't even bother with that. Agreed but I always feel better giving some kind of answer. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 7:33:14 PM EDT
[#47]
There is a lot of assumption that he was hooked up over 18 USC 930 but that was stated by the uniformed division. The US Marshal was the one who detained him and never said what it was for. I have my ideas but I wasnt there and couldnt see what the Marshal saw but I am sure it didnt have to do with the property unless the fed had exclusive jurisdiction I dont know, but it didnt have to be for the reason the Uniformed officer stated....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 7:35:03 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol. how is he doing these days? he is by far an expert level troll in real life. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not sure if kwikrnu v. Milky Way Galaxy is applicable in this instance, but it's worth a look. lol. how is he doing these days? he is by far an expert level troll in real life. Seems to be an occasional "guest contributor" to legal textbooks ... http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Aoc9UJ-yNRUJ:www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0293p-06.pdf+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us We recently had a member quote a section of his law textbook specifically citing the above case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 7:43:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So how "appurtenant" do you have to be? On the property leased or owned by the gov? Within 100 feet? Within 100 miles? Who decides that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building. So how "appurtenant" do you have to be? On the property leased or owned by the gov? Within 100 feet? Within 100 miles? Who decides that? The grounds - so that would be limited to the real property owned/leased by the federal government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 7:46:52 PM EDT
[#50]
So if congress does not fund DHS, can this guy still sue them for the multiple violations of his rights?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
