Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Page / 4
Link Posted: 2/26/2015 9:53:29 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:

Don't bring a gun to a federal courthouse and tell officials that you are there in support/opposition to some specific case.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By chas_martel:
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.


He said he was exercising the 10th amendment.
Link Posted: 2/26/2015 9:55:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SDB666:


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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SDB666:
Originally Posted By Smithy:
Reading some of the comments in here it looks like I have stumbled into the DU.

What the hell is wrong with you people.

I guess, "Shall not be infringed", are just words to some of you.


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.



Washington et al could have walked away too. Fucking show off trolls they were. And don't even get me started on those showboats Parks and King. Uber trolls the both of them.
Link Posted: 2/26/2015 9:57:22 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:

So, Black Panthers with billy clubs standing in front of polling places ... they're just exercising their 2nd amendment rights?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By chas_martel:
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By chas_martel:
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?


If the voters walking past them are open carrying, it's a push. Everyone gets some exercise.
Link Posted: 2/26/2015 10:01:41 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gobucksbaby:
OC crowd is a bunch of puckwads.

Rot in jail you loser asshole.
View Quote

huh...
Link Posted: 2/26/2015 10:26:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:

Don't bring a gun to a federal courthouse and tell officials that you are there in support/opposition to some specific case.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By chas_martel:
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 don't give a flying f*ck what he did. If he wasn't breaking any laws they had no reason to detain him whatsoever.
Link Posted: 2/26/2015 10:55:44 PM EDT
It looks to me he was breaking the law. However would have been nice to see 10,000 people out there with their rifles.
Link Posted: 2/26/2015 11:12:05 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FistPeso:
It looks to me he was breaking the law. However would have been nice to see 10,000 people out there with their rifles.
View Quote


He wasn't. Thats the point.
Link Posted: 2/26/2015 11:23:56 PM EDT
I don't believe he was breaking the law. Having said that when the sawed off Deputy US Marshal came up and told me to leave I would have left.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 2/26/2015 11:26:03 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By awptickes:
Of all of the rifles to carry, an AK?

Seriously?


He wanted to get detained.
View Quote


Where is that federal law that says having an AK is a federal offense?
In the RustyAce's Hitlerverse?
Link Posted: 2/26/2015 11:36:46 PM EDT
When I see shit like this it is always 1-2 people doing it. To really send a message they needed more people. Think of all those protest marches. What I would have loved to have seen was the guy getting harassed by the DHS and then OC reinforcements show up. I'm talking about 30-50 people. And not just moseying on up, I would like to see a full on march or a fucking charge complete with someone carrying the flag, gold fringed if need be. Think about it. The DHS cops think they got the situation with 1 guy when a horde of OC people show up and surround them.


Now that might sound like a whacked out idea.....that same fucking shit went down in places like Ferguson last year and spread like wild fire. Hell, I would pay good money to see some OC person dressed up like William Wallace, complete with face paint yelling CHARGE!!!!!!!!!!!! and start running up.
Link Posted: 2/26/2015 11:44:38 PM EDT
Federal property - you mean public property? We the people own that shit, not some goon.

G
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 12:08:25 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Smithy:


He wasn't. Thats the point.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Smithy:
Originally Posted By FistPeso:
It looks to me he was breaking the law. However would have been nice to see 10,000 people out there with their rifles.


He wasn't. Thats the point.


Really, that is not what I read. The Deputy and officers advised the gentleman that he was in violation of the law and even told him how to remedy the problem.

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.
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 12:18:15 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Gromit32:
Federal property - you mean public property? We the people own that shit, not some goon.

G
View Quote

Link Posted: 2/27/2015 1:05:17 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By -GunNutJuell-:
So it was legal for him to do so, but he was arrested anyways? And some here support his arrest?
View Quote
Yeah..He's an idiot, asshole, publicity seeker whatever as mentioned above for exercising his rights..
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 1:15:48 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kopterdoctor:
He was looking to get arrested... Wish granted. He should at least get a ticket for being an idiot.
View Quote


Remember, if they don't break a law, fine them.
If they DO break a law, kill them.
It's the only way to be sure.
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 2:00:45 AM EDT


The arresting officer should be canned for enforcing laws that don't exist.
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 2:38:40 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FistPeso:
It looks to me he was breaking the law. However would have been nice to see 10,000 people out there with their rifles.
View Quote


The nazis had laws the jews were breaking too.
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 5:10:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2015 5:11:51 AM EDT by easy610]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Strykewolf:


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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Strykewolf:
Originally Posted By BabyGlock_27:
Originally Posted By easy610:
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.


Thank you. You made my point.

Just OC and go about your business. Perfectly legal and rational. No one would bat an eye except for irrational public or uneducated LE. And THEN when you're going about normal daily business and you get stopped and harassed video and post.

But some OC'ers go to great lengths to provoke for attention sake.

If you were just a guy who believed in OC'ing, then you would just OC...at the piggly wiggly or Taco Bell...or city park or walking your dog or shopping at Home Depot. You know, normal daily stuff. People would get the message and it wouldn't appear so desperate for attention. Specifically seeking out confrontation seems desperate.

I know, I know. WTF does it matter what I think. You're right, except I strongly feel you do more damage than good provoking.

But, that's just like my opinion, man.

Link Posted: 2/27/2015 6:25:58 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Blame the guy acting perfectly legally for the illegal actions of government agents. Good call.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Originally Posted By Kopterdoctor:
He was looking to get arrested... Wish granted. He should at least get a ticket for being an idiot.

Blame the guy acting perfectly legally for the illegal actions of government agents. Good call.


This website does not tolerate advocation of criminal acts (as it shouldn't), but I've yet to see someone get a warning for cheer leading or even openly calling for patently un-constitutional thuggery on the part of the government and its agents.
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 6:33:25 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:

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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By David_ESM:
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.


Appurtenant is not synonymous with adjacent.
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 6:34:45 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SDB666:


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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SDB666:
Originally Posted By Smithy:
Reading some of the comments in here it looks like I have stumbled into the DU.

What the hell is wrong with you people.

I guess, "Shall not be infringed", are just words to some of you.


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.


Did you even stop and think what you were posting before you posted it?
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 6:37:53 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By compulynx:
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!
View Quote



Libertaw!!!

Link Posted: 2/27/2015 6:46:46 AM EDT
The seats at the back of the bus are just as nice as the seats in the front. What are you some kind of attention whore?
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 9:03:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2015 9:09:27 AM EDT by India303]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BMWBIKR:


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?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BMWBIKR:
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By David_ESM:
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?
Ding ding.

That's exactly what I see except the law states property to include adjacent grounds . HOWEVER, maybe upon review of the youtube video that AUSA supervisor may have a change of mind. By the letter of the law the open carrier did violate the law when he entered upon the property, not the building. Property covers up to the sidewalk, I'm sure the debate between USMS and AUSA was on Fed property accessible to public vs. inside Fed property controlled by FPS/GSA/USMS. AUSA cannot handle anything but slam sunk cases apparently. Any non successful prosecutions are a big black mark. Unlike state and local. Which apparently sate law differs from fed whereas he has to enter or attempt entry. And who knows if that means in the entrance foyer or at security screening.


The open carrier got what he wanted. What he did does not help open or CCW carriers. Now watch as someone will put forth a law preventing anyone withing XXX feet from any g building from being armed and it will pass. Way to go fucko.
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 9:31:30 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Loremsk:


Appurtenant is not synonymous with adjacent.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Loremsk:
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:

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.


Appurtenant is not synonymous with adjacent.


Appurtenant could mean a lot of things and is not ascertainable without looking at the land records, or the (usually not publicly accessible) leases. It could include non-adjoining parcels, like an parking lot or annex to a court that GSA has leased. It could include easements for access. It could include lots of things not readily ascertainable by the public. Which is why the terminology in that statutory provision is problematic.
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 9:35:40 AM EDT
first post is dildos.
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 9:37:26 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By grumpycoconut:


He said he was exercising the 10th amendment.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By grumpycoconut:
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By chas_martel:
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.


He said he was exercising the 10th amendment.

But it sounded like he mentioned a specific case before the mention of the 10th. That's when the officer asked him about case details.

Besides, 10th Amendment doesn't even make sense because regulation of federal property is an explicit power delegated by the Constitution. Or, was he protesting a specific case that may somehow involve the 10th? Either way, the actions of the Marshall and DHS seem to be within the proper scope of their duties.

Most of the people going in and out of the building are unarmed, unarmed by specific legal statute. The plurality consensus of this website seems to be "well if a property owner is going to prohibit carry, then they need to guarantee your safety". Ok, so here we are with federal officials trying to balance a myriad of constitutional issues against the safety of those doing legitimate business in the building.

Federal buildings inside cities are different from some fenced off federal facility off in who knows where. I don't know of any successful argument that would allow someone, who isn't otherwise specifically authorized, to go for a stroll across something like AF Plant #6 with a gun. But, federal buildings in cities have frontages, courtyards, and the such that are essentially public space not unlike any other part of the city, and therefore have to consider the 2nd Amendment rights of the public crossing through, or in, these areas. This is what the DHS guy was doing in his questioning.
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 9:55:42 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sywagon:
first post is dildos.
View Quote

Embody v Ward addresses 42 USC 1983 civil action for deprivation of rights . Unless this case goes to court, that's the most applicable case law that I can think of.
Link Posted: 2/27/2015 3:19:50 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By easy610:


Thank you. You made my point.

Just OC and go about your business. Perfectly legal and rational. No one would bat an eye except for irrational public or uneducated LE. And THEN when you're going about normal daily business and you get stopped and harassed video and post.

But some OC'ers go to great lengths to provoke for attention sake.

If you were just a guy who believed in OC'ing, then you would just OC...at the piggly wiggly or Taco Bell...or city park or walking your dog or shopping at Home Depot. You know, normal daily stuff. People would get the message and it wouldn't appear so desperate for attention. Specifically seeking out confrontation seems desperate.

I know, I know. WTF does it matter what I think. You're right, except I strongly feel you do more damage than good provoking.

But, that's just like my opinion, man.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/a0bc0de84f5d746516b4781e00a32c58/tumblr_mh2h76y9681rsm51xo1_500.gif
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By easy610:
Originally Posted By Strykewolf:
Originally Posted By BabyGlock_27:
Originally Posted By easy610:
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.


Thank you. You made my point.

Just OC and go about your business. Perfectly legal and rational. No one would bat an eye except for irrational public or uneducated LE. And THEN when you're going about normal daily business and you get stopped and harassed video and post.

But some OC'ers go to great lengths to provoke for attention sake.

If you were just a guy who believed in OC'ing, then you would just OC...at the piggly wiggly or Taco Bell...or city park or walking your dog or shopping at Home Depot. You know, normal daily stuff. People would get the message and it wouldn't appear so desperate for attention. Specifically seeking out confrontation seems desperate.

I know, I know. WTF does it matter what I think. You're right, except I strongly feel you do more damage than good provoking.

But, that's just like my opinion, man.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/a0bc0de84f5d746516b4781e00a32c58/tumblr_mh2h76y9681rsm51xo1_500.gif

but has it occurred to you that the very reason your daily "normal" OC is not getting attention is because of those who OCed way before you and got arrested and called attention whore and got LE and general public educated?
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 3:21:33 PM EDT
we need more OC and constitutional carry
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 3:31:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2015 3:32:15 PM EDT by chas_martel]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ns66:

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
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ns66:
Originally Posted By NinerMaine:
Originally Posted By -GunNutJuell-:
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


They are basically Urban FUDD's or duck hunters.
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 3:37:08 PM EDT
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 3:43:16 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:
I'm having a difficult time understanding what Bosworth says to the officer when the officer asks him if he was "exercising your 2nd Amendment rights?" but it sounds like Bosworth answered in the negative and said he was there in "support of [unintelligible] case" at which point the officer seems to ask him some details about the case and Bosworth promptly tells him he doesn't have to say anything ... blah blah blah.

As well as I could hear what was going on, I've got no problem with Bosworth being detained.
View Quote

You're good with people being detained for not violating the law? That's fucked up.


Link Posted: 2/28/2015 4:06:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By -GunNutJuell-:
So it was legal for him to do so, but he was arrested anyways? And some here support his arrest?
View Quote


Welcome to the 2nd amendment loving gun forum that is ARFCOM..
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 4:27:29 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:


What are the cops going to do if they're breaking no law?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By compulynx:
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?


Realistically? Show a presence, talk to them, command their attention for a while. In the meantime, compulynx's wife and kids are home and safely in the house.
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 4:44:38 PM EDT
18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities.


This is the problem, the Fed's definition of "In ... facilities". The feds are treating the entire grounds as the facility. The average Joe would interpret "in facility" to mean being inside the building. By literal definition he was On federal property, not In the facility. If the way in which the feds are interpreting the law were to be held throughout all federal property, then 67% of my state of Idaho is federal property and it would therefore be illegal to carry a firearm in a national forest or BLM land. Hell, the feds own 84% of Nevada.
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 4:51:01 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:

Don't bring a gun to a federal courthouse and tell officials that you are there in support/opposition to some specific case.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By chas_martel:
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.


Why? Because it makes some tools uncomfortable? Because its not something you would do?
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 5:02:41 PM EDT
I'm glad he was arrested.
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 5:09:29 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:


The power to prohibit is not the power to criminalize.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By David_ESM:
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.


They were trying to prohibit. He talked himself into the criminality.
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 5:11:13 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By smithc6:


And fuck his Miranda rights too!

SMH
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By smithc6:
Originally Posted By gobucksbaby:
OC crowd is a bunch of puckwads.

Rot in jail you loser asshole.


And fuck his Miranda rights too!

SMH


Are you suggesting that it is not a good bust based on the fact that they did not immediately (on camera) mirandize him?
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 5:14:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By David_ESM:


I smell money in his future.

View Quote

I just farted, do you smell money in my future?
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 5:15:43 PM EDT
One wonders how congress would work if mere citizens were allowed to watch them vote while open carrying in the gallery......

Me thinks the voting would get REAL interesting....

Perhaps all congressional reps should ask themselves the question just before voting?

"Would my vote change if my constituency was sitting in the gallery armed?"



Link Posted: 2/28/2015 5:18:03 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

What are you going to do? Illegally detain them for a few hours?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Originally Posted By compulynx:
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 you going to do? Illegally detain them for a few hours?



Link Posted: 2/28/2015 6:10:55 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By compulynx:
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!
View Quote


Maybe that site staff member was right when he said this place would turn into stormfront is just mere hours without moderation.
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 7:24:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2015 7:25:38 PM EDT by Loremsk]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gobucksbaby:


Are you suggesting that it is not a good bust based on the fact that they did not immediately (on camera) never mirandized him?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gobucksbaby:
Originally Posted By smithc6:
Originally Posted By gobucksbaby:
OC crowd is a bunch of puckwads.

Rot in jail you loser asshole.


And fuck his Miranda rights too!

SMH


Are you suggesting that it is not a good bust based on the fact that they did not immediately (on camera) never mirandized him?


FIFY
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 7:39:05 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Conspicuously troll a federal building with rifles hoping to get arrested, and you get arrested?

Depending on the period of detention, they may have no civil recourse.
View Quote


This plus you don't have to Miranda someone as soon as you out the cuffs on. Open carry guy is an idiot.
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 7:40:33 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By awptickes:
Of all of the rifles to carry, an AK?

Seriously?


He wanted to get detained.
View Quote


He carried a weapon he didn't mind losing. I doubt he would be trolling with a Noveske or LaRue.
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 7:42:13 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Loremsk:


FIFY
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Loremsk:
Originally Posted By gobucksbaby:
Originally Posted By smithc6:
Originally Posted By gobucksbaby:
OC crowd is a bunch of puckwads.

Rot in jail you loser asshole.


And fuck his Miranda rights too!

SMH


Are you suggesting that it is not a good bust based on the fact that they did not immediately (on camera) never mirandized him?


FIFY


This.
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 7:59:18 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gobucksbaby:
OC crowd is a bunch of puckwads.

Rot in jail you loser asshole.
View Quote





May your chains rest lightly..


Txl
Link Posted: 2/28/2015 8:01:01 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By burkeva:


This plus you don't have to Miranda someone as soon as you out the cuffs on. Open carry guy is an idiot.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By burkeva:
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Conspicuously troll a federal building with rifles hoping to get arrested, and you get arrested?

Depending on the period of detention, they may have no civil recourse.


This plus you don't have to Miranda someone as soon as you out the cuffs on. Open carry guy is an idiot.


You should probably go back and read the full story at the OP before making another comment about Miranda.
Page / 4
Top Top