Jump to content

Guy arrested for being responsible gun owner


Casper

Recommended Posts

I find it unfortunate that the mothers call initiated the problems for her son but can find no fault in her actions. She couldn’t have foreseen the actions of the state at the time and I’m sure she regrets calling them now. I commend anyone who calls on a loved one that they know has committed a crime and is a fugitive from justice. I know this wasn't the case here but she thought she was doing the right thing and helping. The state is where things went really wrong.

Don't get me wrong about involving authorities if someone is wanted, I would never turn someone in who has violated a law that I find unjust. If you have a firearm that someone deems illegal no call from me, if you break a traffic law and haven't harmed anyone no call from me, if you have violated a community standards law no call from me.

If you have raped someone, I'm calling, if you hit someone in a motor vehicle and run I'm calling, if you rob a bank I'm calling, no matter what your relationship to me is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yes I was to a certain degree, but I do not want to have any issues while I'm there. I know about Georgia, so I plan to just unload it and lock it up. I have a sweet app that has all the states on it for conceal carry. It has the laws, reciprocity for all the states, but we all know how "clear" the laws are.

BTW, thanks for the help....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is shitty. should be overturned on a appeal.

The one thing the judge did right was disallow the testimony about his call to the NJ state police though. Unless they get the person he talked to into court to testify (doesn't seem that unreasonable), the content of that conversation is hearsay. (although the claim that he MADE the call is arguably admissible)

But otherwise, the judge is improperly instructing the jury. It IS the jury's job to make rulings on questions of fact, but the judge has to allow them to hear the relevant facts for them to make an informed decision.

bottom line is that the jury should be the ones deciding if he was in fact "moving."

...but I'm betting there is case law to support that he wasn't. His move from CO to NJ sounds like it took a while, and the legal definition of "moving" in NJ has likely already been determined by some other case. I doubt you can be "moving" for multiple weeks AFTER establishing a permanent address. Admitting he stored the guns in the car so his roommate could have a party (which I agree, sounds logical, if not responsible) is what could ultimately screw him. It's an admission that he was done "moving," and used the car as storage.

Still, I think this is a prime example of why pardons were conceived. This guy needs to lose his lawyer and contact the NRA to champion his cause.

Edited by redkow97
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so I am not typing from jail in December, I am heading to Florida for Christmas and I will be carrying, What should I do in Georgia? And can I not carry in Florida if I am just visiting?

I was working in Florida over the summer. Got pulled over in Cocoa Beach, going 55 in a 35. When the officer walked up to the van, I had my hands on the wheel, and announced that I have a CCW permit, and I do have a loaded handgun on me. Do you have any special instructions for me or the weapon? He said, nope, just need your license and registration. He came back and gave a warning.

As for Georgia, I just stop and unload the gun, and lock it up.:cry:

I wish every state would honor a citizen right to carry a concealed handgun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where'd you find this magical right at?

There isn't one. That's why I wish there was. I thinks it's bull that each state has their own laws about this. I think that if you take the course and pay for your CCW permit, that you should be able to travel anywhere in the U.S. with your gun. This crap of stopping in this state, unloading, and locking it up is stupid! I just can back from Jersey, New York, and Connecticut and didn't even take my gun. None of those states, honor Ohio's permit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently in New Jersey, and in regards to guns, you're guilty unless proven innocent.

Didn't we fight the King of England over things like that? Or was my history education tainted by some biased opinion?

Why would he comply with a search of his vehicle? If I have done nothing, you see nothing.... without a warrant.

It's New Jersey. They'll make up a reason real fast.

Edited by dorifto240
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't one. That's why I wish there was. I thinks it's bull that each state has their own laws about this. I think that if you take the course and pay for your CCW permit, that you should be able to travel anywhere in the U.S. with your gun. This crap of stopping in this state, unloading, and locking it up is stupid! I just can back from Jersey, New York, and Connecticut and didn't even take my gun. None of those states, honor Ohio's permit.

that's Federalism.

Personally, I prefer the ability to "vote with my feet" (i.e. if I don't like OH laws, I can move to IN). If you don't like NJ's gun laws, don't live there, and don't travel there.

It's a given that not everyone will agree - why can't like-minds congregate to a particular ultra-liberal state and have retarded gun laws? I'd rather have them all in NJ than annoying gun owners in every state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm torn on this issue. I read the 2A as an individual right to carry a gun. This should be followed by all state constitutions. Carrying a gun from state to state is a right that ought not be infringed. After all' date=' it's not like I'm asking to murder an unborn child in another state.. right?[/quote']

You'd be wrong. It is literally the individual right to own arms in support of a well organized militia. Even early on it was written how difficult it would be to actually organize that many people over such a great distance for a militia. Politics as usual, the 2nd was never changed to be more realistic.

These days the only reason the courts (District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)) and government have relaxed the meaning is pure politics and they haven't amended the 2nd is because those money grubbing pieces of shit in the NRA hold a lot of influence and would be out of business if they didn't have their issue to scream the sky is falling about raking in dough for them and firearm manufacturers.

Money and politics...neither business or politicians have anything to gain if they amend the constitution so that it makes modern sense in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the constitution has been bastardized into "supporting" ideas it was never meant to address.

Interstate carry? In 1787? there was virtually no such thing as interstate travel when the constitution was drafted. Furthermore, there was no highway, let alone a highway patrol to hassle people for carrying. It was a non-issue. EVERYONE owned a firearm, because they used it to hunt. Carrying wouldn't become common until the "wild west" era.

The federal government has almost limitless power via the commerce clause. The framers never even considered a society where parts would be shipped from all over the world and assembled in one place; they were only familiar with a truly local economy. I challenge you to find ONE item in your house that's made from parts only created and assembled in Ohio. Everything that's not is (arguably) subject to regulation by the federal government under the commerce clause.

Of course there are exceptions; the court won't allow the fed to pass a regulation that has a blatant legislative effect that the states could (and probably should) pass on their own. But that's for things like labor laws, marriage, driving regulations, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No' date=' I'm not wrong... and the Supreme Court seems to agree with me.[/quote']

No you're wrong. It's all politics like I've already mentioned. The 2nd Amendment was never meant to address the right to bear arms in defense of ones self or property. It's purely for what it says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,.." Madison intended there be protection for militia's so they wouldn't be disarmed and so that the people and states could defend themselves from a federal military if needed.

The founders and original writers never imagined they would need to address the personal right to own a firearm in the Constitution. Madison himself noted in writings that the government shouldn't ever consider laws keeping someone from owning weapons for self defense and in defense of property. It was a given in those times with no laws regulating firearms for those sorts of things.

As was previously mentioned, it (like others) is being used to address things it was never meant to address. In the end it makes for a powerful political and business tool. Nothing like a little grey area and motive for people to abuse the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you're wrong. It's all politics like I've already mentioned. The 2nd Amendment was never meant to address the right to bear arms in defense of ones self or property. It's purely for what it says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,.." Madison intended there be protection for militia's so they wouldn't be disarmed and so that the people and states could defend themselves from a federal military if needed.

The founders and original writers never imagined they would need to address the personal right to own a firearm in the Constitution. Madison himself noted in writings that the government shouldn't ever consider laws keeping someone from owning weapons for self defense and in defense of property. It was a given in those times with no laws regulating firearms for those sorts of things.

As was previously mentioned, it (like others) is being used to address things it was never meant to address. In the end it makes for a powerful political and business tool. Nothing like a little grey area and motive for people to abuse the Constitution.

The "militia" is the people. You, me, IP.... They felt standing armies were dangerous and it was the duty of the people, all the people to defend themselves against anything that could destroy life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...