[gunsmith]

Beach parent is charged with taking gun to school
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=85665&ran=213688

By MATTHEW JONES, The Virginian-Pilot
© April 28, 2005 | Last updated 12:05 AM Apr. 28

VIRGINIA BEACH — A man was arrested for allegedly taking a handgun to a parent-teacher conference at Landstown High School on Wednesday morning.

John William Tipton was charged with possessing a firearm on school property, a felony, said police spokeswoman Rene Ball.

There was no indication that Tipton meant to hurt or influence anyone, she said.

At about 7:30 a.m., Tipton walked into Landstown at 2001 Concert Drive for a previously scheduled meeting. As he checked in at the school office, Ball said, a staff member noticed the handgun in a holster on Tipton’s right hip.
Landstown’s safe schools coordinator told Tipton he was not allowed on school property with a weapon. He then left school property, put the pistol in his vehicle and returned to the school to meet with a teacher.

A school resource officer from Kellam High School went to Landstown to investigate and ended up arresting Tipton.

Ball stressed that police have no indication that Tipton meant to hurt anyone. His job requires him to carry a gun, she said, and he has a concealed-weapons permit.

Tipton had thought the permit allowed him to carry the gun onto school property, Ball said, but state law prohibits it. Tipton was informed once before that this was not permitted, Ball said.

Tipton, 53, of the 1900 block of Grey Dove Court, was released on a $5,000 unsecured bond.



Reach Matthew Jones at (757) 222-5150 or matthew.jones@pilotonline.com.

[centac]

So the guy was either:
-ignorant of the law, a scary thought for a gun user, or
-intentionally ignored a prior warning.

There may be other info conveniently left out of the article, but on first blush it appears the guy screwed up, for which there are consequences which, barring other information we are'nt privy to, he earned.

[HighVelocity]

Tipton was informed once before that this was not permitted, Ball said.

He already used his free pass. No he's got to pay the piper. :rolleyes:

[Gunsnrovers]

Tipton looks to be an idiot.

If his job requiers that he carry, he has no excuse not to be fully aware of the law. As was/is being discussed in another thread about a similar arrest of a teacher in Virginia, the law appears to be very clear that you cannot carry on school property and you cannot leave your weapon in your car on school property.

[OF]

Looks like he was trying to exercise his human right to self defense in direct violation of an oppressive and unjust law and got caught.

Ultimately, it's the law that's the problem. I hope he gets away with this.

- Gabe

[gunsmith]

That this onerous unjust law will prevent criminals from bringing guns to school.
NOT!

[2nd Amendment]

Another instance of "Where's the problem"? Oh, yes, the thug that told him to disarm and the thug that arrested him.

[JohnBT]

Thug? :scrutiny:

[2nd Amendment]

Assisted in enforcing a bogus law because he's, and we can be sure this is the phrase, "just doing his job". Thugs. Thoughtless thugs. Muscle with no brains, or at least no willingness to use whatever they may have.

[Risasi]

I say no blood, no foul.

Not enough info on this story.

If he was ignorant, being guilty of a crime usually has regard to intent. Or at least it's supposed to. That's why we have varying shades of murder; 1st degrees, 2nd degree, involuntary manslaughter, crime of passion, etc.

For instance the action of him walking into a school and gunning down the principal would prove his intent was to shoot somebody. The very fact that he walked out and put the gun in his car show his intent was NOT to shoot somebody. Now I don't know what his intent was. We'll just have to wait and see.

As for all of you so ready and willing to condemn him, I'll give him the benefit of doubt. That's what innocent before proven guilty is all about. Even if he was warned. I've carried (unintentionally) on school property. Needless to say I've almost needed a clean pair of shorts a time or two when I realized it.

I agree with GRD, it's the law that is a problem. When you start creating laws that criminalize for the most petty things every single one of us will break that law eventually. These laws are too subjective, where do you draw the line? I know a Super who used to use his old .38 for track. What about guys who live across the street? You know some of those laws extend a thousand feet from the building. So if you live within a 1/4 mile you're probably a criminal.

If you guys want to go by the letter of the law a whole bunch of us are guilty of all sorts of stuff.

[Old Dog]

Assisted in enforcing a bogus law because he's, and we can be sure this is the phrase, "just doing his job". Thugs. Thoughtless thugs.
That's the ticket to changing bad laws all right, making excuses for the careless folks who break the laws (inadvertently or not) while calling other folks -- yes, who are just doing their jobs -- derogatory names. Yes, these type of comments are so likely to help us get support for changing the laws ...

[centac]

You dont change laws by violating them, but what do I know, just being a mindless thug and all....... :banghead:

[2nd Amendment]

Actually a time honored way to change bad laws is to violate them in protest. And yes, those who enforce bad laws while hiding behind the excuse of "I was just doing my job/taking orders" are thugs. The Nuremburg Trials pretty much established that. If you prefer mindless automaton, that's fine. Co-conspirator? That works too. If you choose to take offense then perhaps you should think about exactly what it is you do and why you would feel the need to take offense?

The "authorities" in question specifically admit they have no reason to think the fellow intended any harm in any fashion whatsoever, yet they felt the need to "enforce the law". People felt the need to enforce slavery and keep women from voting and blacks on the back of the bus and send Jews to furnaces, too. Either your typical blanket defenses of "LEO's" apply to those creatures as well OR you have to review each instance and assign blame, regardless of whether it is "the law" or not, where it belongs.

I'm certain someone here can find a way to weasel around that, though. :rolleyes:

[DRZinn]

A school resource officer from Kellam High School went to Landstown to investigate and ended up arresting Tipton. What the hell is a "school resource officer" and how does one have power to arrest?

[Bubbles]

What the hell is a "school resource officer" and how does one have power to arrest?

IIRC a school resource officer is a sheriff's deputy or county police officer who is specifically assigned to patrol a particular "problem" school while classes are in session.

Also, as of July 1 the law is changing (for the better!) in Virginia regarding CHL's and carrying on school property. The changes to the law are in the italicized text.

HB 2535 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+ful+HB2535ER)

[Risasi]

Oh that's just sick Bubbles,

That means this guy wouldn't have got burned if they caught him a few months from now. That's pretty bad.

You know there is something wrong with our society when all it takes to go from criminal to law breaker is just a matter of timing...

[EDIT] Heh, heh. Did I say criminal to law breaker? I meant law abider to criminal.. :o

[2nd Amendment]

Hmm, that's an interesting thing I never thought of in that way before. Criminal...law-breaker...obviously not necessarily the same thing, eh? :D

[Ryder]

It amazes me how many people believe the word of a police spokesperson. :confused:

[Sistema1927]

Why wasn't his weapon concealed? Sounds like he was a bit careless in his cover garment.

[Standing Wolf]

...those who enforce bad laws while hiding behind the excuse of "I was just doing my job/taking orders" are thugs.

Well, thugs or Nazis.

[gunsmith]

The guy seems like a regular gun owner who carries 24/7 (as is his right per the 2nd Amendment)
To people like him (& myself) wearing a gun is no different then having a wallet,watch,hat,glasses.
This dumb rule (which only insures that there are unarmed victims for the next school shooter or terrorist)
was not (it seems) violated with malicious intent,he did after all take the gun off and put it in his car when informed of his "violation".
To me it's like wearing a hat in Church,you don't take a guy out and hang him for it,you tell him to please take it off.

[grampster]

Sigh.....I'm not defending the guy. I have no idea why he carried into the school.

But there is a definite message here. Someone told him he should not be doing that and he left and put it in the car. Some folks would have been carrying into the school in order to commit mayhem. 2nd Amendment might be a bit blunt in his commentary, but his point is well taken. The guy never intended to commit a crime. If he did he would have made an issue out of carrying and his rights and his right to protest etc. He did not. He went oops and put the gun in the car. After that reasonableness and common sense should have ruled the day. It did not.

It's all about intent here folks. Intent used to be an element in whether one was guilty of breaking a law, criminal law, not a civil infraction.

The forces of darkness are slowly but surely removing intent as an element of a crime. Hate crime, zero tolerance, political correctness, implied consent, et al. That whole scenario is about a priori guilt superceding actualy intending to do something criminal with criminal purpose. As an aside why is it never wrong for those on the left to actually intend to break laws and then perpretrate them. They are called protestors. Supporters of freedom are called criminals.

[JohnBT]

"If you choose to take offense then perhaps you should think about exactly what it is you do and why you would feel the need to take offense?"

Offense? Nah. Just questioning your tactless name calling. It is called The High Road after all.

John

[2nd Amendment]

So use of a term now extends not merely to insulting other posters but anyone? I'll expect you to comment similarly on everyone who uses a derogatory term for the Brady's or Schumer or Militia members or whomever on whatever side of an issue the resident rightys and leftys, including yourself, may wish to bash at various times.

I can count on that, right? Consistency. Lack of hypocrisy? That you're not looking for some stone to toss here so you don't have to deal with what was actually said? Ok, I thought I could count on you guys.

[Bubbles]

That means this guy wouldn't have got burned if they caught him a few months from now. That's pretty bad.

Actually, no. Even with the law change you still can't carry inside the school building. It looks like you can only have it in your vehicle.

[OF]

You dont change laws by violating them...Tell that to Rosa Parks.

Actually, it is damn near your duty as an American to resist unjust laws imposed upon you by an oppressive gov't. The current state of gun control laws in this country is oppression and we are the oppressed. You may not feel it as such, but it is the fact. Oppressed people must resist their oppression. You do not resist by obeying.

Where we are on this timeline from voting to disobeying unjust laws to passive resistance to taking the option to actually get rid of the gov't (an option specifically reserved to the people by the founders) is arguable, frankly I feel we're only at the very earliest stages, where voting is still the method indicated' bBut the extremely mild disobedience that this guy showed is about as nice a form of resistance as you could possibly expect.

- Gabe

[centac]

Oh puleeze, the ever popular Rosa Parks analogy. Comparing this buffoon to her is an insult to the civil rights movement.

So this guy isnt stupid, just civilly disobediant. He did it for the greater good. Its for the children, to demonstrate that not everybody who totes a gun into school is going to shoot up the place, recent history be damned.

I'm sure he has "Good Guy" tattooed across his forehead so we can tell him from the small but effective group of crazed loons who seem to have a nasty habit of killing people in schools. And to think that those pesky sheeple might be wary of someone in a school with a gun.......

Really, if this is the best example of the cause we can ante up we are screwed.

[Mr. James]

centac,

Couldn't disagree more. While it appears unlikely this guy was engaged in pre-meditated civil disobedience a la Parks or King, passive submission to unjust laws is tantamount to consent to them.

And in considering "the small but effective group of crazed loons" who have visited mayhem upon our public schools, perhaps you would do well to remember the small but effective group of selfless heroes, such as Joel Myrick (Pearl, Mississippi, 1997) and Tracy Bridges (Grundy, Virginia, 2002) who, yes, violated the law and put an end to shootings on school property.

[centac]

Courts and electors decide what laws are unjust, not individuals. Ya cannot make it up as you go along. Dont like the law, change it thru channels. If that doesnt work, then you can up the stakes, or decide that it isnt all about you and understand that a society is based on law and not personal opinion.

Seriously, you think this guy was something more than stupid? He decided that the most important thing to prove was his "right" to carry in a school? Tell me what he did prior to his great act of defiance, except violate the same law previously and get off with a warning. Someone in the past apparently cut him a break and now he apparently thinks that makes him entitled

Remember that our last school shooter killed a cop to get his gun and shot the on-site security officer first-off. Harris and Klebold directly engaged the deputy assigned to Columbine. So much for the presence of a gun being a deterrent or solution.

[brickeyee]

It is not that complicated a law. A concealed permit does not allow you to enter a school.
From the Virginia Code:
18.2-308.1. Possession of firearm, stun weapon, or other weapon on school property prohibited.

A. If any person possesses any (i) stun weapon or taser as defined in this section, (ii) knife, except a pocket knife having a folding metal blade of less than three inches, or (iii) weapon, including a weapon of like kind, designated in subsection A of § 18.2-308, other than a firearm, upon (a) the property of any public, private or parochial elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds, (b) that portion of any property open to the public used for school-sponsored functions or extracurricular activities while such functions or activities are taking place, or (c) any school bus owned or operated by any such school, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. If any person possesses any firearm designed or intended to expel a projectile by action of an explosion of a combustible material while such person is upon (i) any public, private or parochial elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds, (ii) that portion of any property open to the public used for school-sponsored functions or extracurricular activities while such functions or activities are taking place, or (iii) any school bus owned or operated by any such school, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony; however, if the person possesses any firearm within a public, private or parochial elementary, middle or high school building and intends to use, or attempts to use, such firearm, or displays such weapon in a threatening manner, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years to be served consecutively with any other sentence.

The exemptions set out in § 18.2-308 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of this section. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (i) persons who possess such weapon or weapons as a part of the school's curriculum or activities, (ii) a person possessing a knife customarily used for food preparation or service and using it for such purpose, (iii) persons who possess such weapon or weapons as a part of any program sponsored or facilitated by either the school or any organization authorized by the school to conduct its programs either on or off the school premises, (iv) any law-enforcement officer, (v) any person who possesses a knife or blade which he uses customarily in his trade, or (vi) a person who possesses an unloaded firearm that is in a closed container, or a knife having a metal blade, in or upon a motor vehicle, or an unloaded shotgun or rifle in a firearms rack in or upon a motor vehicle. For the purposes of this paragraph, "weapon" includes a knife having a metal blade of three inches or longer and "closed container" includes a locked vehicle trunk.

End quote fom the Code.

He is in direct violation of 18.2-308.1B. Ignorance is not going to be allowed (he is lucky they let him slide the first time) as a defense.
A cafeteria worker in Manassas got 3-4 months in jail for locking guns in her vehicle after her son hid them and brought to them to school.
The change scheduled for July 1, 2005 allows you to drive onto the school grounds to drop off or pick up. It also clarifies the law about ‘being used for a school function’ as meaning completely and entirely. Right now someone could try and use the law to arrest someone carrying in McDonalds if a school trip stopped in for lunch.
It was hard enough to get the exception for hunting rifles in racks passed and the new change/clarification.

[2nd Amendment]

All immaterial. centac. The "law" remains a stupid, pointless and unenforceable regulation. A government flunky happened to get an eyefull this time and wanted everyone to see how studious he is about his job.

The guy in question, of course, has to be stupid according to you defenders of the legalist staus-quo. Fact is most likely he carries more than a cop and simply doesn't think about the thing being there. Of course this likely possibility has already been noted in this thread...and conspicuously ignored in favor of continuing to call the victim here(the man with the legal firearm) stupid. Hey, JohBT, is that better than calling the enforcers thugs?

Also noteworthy is the avoidance of the subject of blind enforcement of various laws and then the jumping on at the mention of Parks, a "weak link" in the discussion. I suppose, though, that nobody is supposed to notice these kinds of lapses.

Fine, I'm going to use this thread to say this, and I'll repeat some variant of it everytime a citizen disobeys a stupid law and the Government Contingent rushes in to defend the arrest from now on:

Cops are civilians with usually minimal additional training and very specific additional arrest powers. They are exactly proportional to the rest of the population in stupidity, brilliance, arrogance, corruption, pettiness, honor, strength and weakness, etc. They are no more deserving of respect or submission based on the job they are paid to do than is a school teacher or a business owner. Respect is earned by an individual, not bought as a group purchase with a badge or a position.

Likewise laws are made by elected officials, very often independent of or in direct contravention to the will of the people(or as a benefit of their ignorance) and or of the Constitution and BoR who are no smarter, better educated, noble, honorable or deserving of respect than the average man or woman on the street. Thus they make just as many mistakes and do just as many deeds for no more reason than personal advancement in some form as any other person.

As such, many laws are wrong. Many laws have no reason to exist and many of those that do have reason are so poorly crafted as to be dangerous in their ambiguity. Why? Because ordinary people with ordinary understanding and ordinary and often less than noble motivations are charged with their enforcement. There is no arguing with this reality in any logical way. It's just part of the Human condition.

As such, rushing in to defend every law or every LEO everytime people post something absurd for no other reason than "it's a law" or "he's a cop" is not helping relations between Citizens and Citizens employed as police. Look at each instance. Look at each person, then think before we get to see the usual defense. In this case we have a law abiding person who violated a stupid and pointless law which is already in the process of being modified to varying degrees. There was obviously no violent intent nor even suspicion of such. The firearm didn't stay in the building. There is no "crime", only a violation of a pointless piece of legislation.

And yet the "law" was enforced. A man's life now gets trashed. The State gets to take one more small step on the road of intimidation. A cop does something pointless because it's easier than thinking about it. And best of all, we all sit here and call people stupid and thuggish and further draw the line in the sand between cops and Citizens when there is no difference at all.

I'm tired of it. Tired of being dissed for speaking out about things. Tired of the cop bashing as well, believe it or not. But as long as the Us vs Them mentality endures we're going to keep having these encounters, from fairly mild such as this to user-banning brawls as has happened here and elsewhere before. It's getting not only very old, but very dangerous. Armed camps are not a wise goal to be working towards here.

The law is not a unified front or wall without holes. Police are not "the good guys". Citizens are not stupid. We're all the same and we've created a system that reflects us: Grand and flawed and often wrong or misinterpreted and often amazingly right all at the same time. Anyone who can't catch the nuances really needs to just stop and give it all a rest for a while.

Hmm, damn, I think I just had a rant... :(

[centac]

Never mind.

:banghead:

[2nd Amendment]

Nothing to say but yet had to say something? One more reason things will just keep on keeping on. :rolleyes:

[Henry Bowman]

Very well put 2A. And I thought of the Rosa Parks analogy right before seeing it aptly noted above. This is a human rights issue.

Let's hope centac sticks around long enough for us to get to know him/her better and why he/she has such an interest in this forum.

[fjolnirsson]

2A,

http://combatcarry.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/signs/above3.gif

As usual, you and I are on the same page.

[brickeyee]

So get off your (you know what) and work to get the law changed. I have spent a lot of time and effort to pressure state legislators to even get to the point we are at now in Virginia. I wrote letters and support the Virginia Shooting Sports Association (Life Member, a state version of the NRA).
While in an absolute sense the entire carry issue may violate the Second, no one has won this fight.
The guy screwed up, and possibly not just once. He was not engaged in a protest, he was just being stupid.
I am sure he would appreciate if you offered to pay for the legal bill he is about to be stuck with.

[centac]

So by your logic it should be perfectly fine to carry:

In a correctional institution, most of which have an educational unit

On the White House Tour - it is educational, after all

In a nuclear plant training facility

On a military base, most of which have schools.

Furthermore, everyone should be allowed to carry in school, the violent kids, the angry parents, and so forth, cause if it is OK for you, its OK for everybody.....

[2nd Amendment]

Not even worth answering, since it is in no way what I said and is posted solely to try and bait an expanded argument. Try reading what has been said and reply to that. Then we can go on from there.

EDIT: Nah, I'll rise to the bait in a somewhat different way:

So by your logic it should be perfectly fine to carry:

In a correctional institution, most of which have an educational unit

On the White House Tour - it is educational, after all

In a nuclear plant training facility

On a military base, most of which have schools.

For any US Citizen who has a CCW this should not even be open to question.

Furthermore, everyone should be allowed to carry in school, the violent kids, the angry parents, and so forth, cause if it is OK for you, its OK for everybody.....

Please show how this in any way relates to anything related to the article or anything I in any way said or implied. If you can't then a public retraction would show considerable maturity on your part.

[jlwatts3]

2a vs. centac

Looks like a lopsided battle to me. :rolleyes:

[centac]

The guy broke the law by taking a firearm into a restricted area.

You seem to be under the delusion that laws only apply when you like them.

Some people apparently need to find out the hard way.

[2nd Amendment]

Why do people who obviously haven't read a single thing in the discussion except their own posts insist on commenting, repeatedly, in those discussions? :banghead: :confused:

Oh, BTW, I took time to specifically answer your questions above(you read that, correct?), even though they had little or nothing to do with the topic. Your rebuttal and explanations would be...?

[JohnBT]

"So use of a term now extends not merely to insulting other posters but anyone?"

There you go. Name calling is not necessary. Take for instance the phrase 'government flunky.' Was it really necessary to use it in order to make your point?

John

[fjolnirsson]

You seem to be under the delusion that laws only apply when you like them.

And you, sir, seem to be under the delusion that unjust behavior contrary to the founding principles of this country can be excused by citing a law passed by an out of control legislature, or voted in by citizens ignorant of civil rights..
You seem to believe that intent has no place in a criminal case.

[TechBrute]

Oh puleeze, the ever popular Rosa Parks analogy. IIRC, the cops jumped right in to arrest her. Just doing their job, and all.

So by your logic it should be perfectly fine to carry:

In a correctional institution, most of which have an educational unit

On the White House Tour - it is educational, after all

In a nuclear plant training facility

On a military base, most of which have schools.

Furthermore, everyone should be allowed to carry in school, the violent kids, the angry parents, and so forth, cause if it is OK for you, its OK for everybody..... Someone help me out here, I can't remember the latin term for taking a logical point to its illogical conclusion in a debate. I think that applies here.

[fjolnirsson]

Someone help me out here, I can't remember the latin term for taking a logical point to its illogical conclusion in a debate. I think that applies here.

You might try looking here:
Fallacy Files (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html)

I can't remember, either....

[2nd Amendment]

But apparently, John, the problem only exists when calling cops or other bureaucrats names. Afterall, you haven't said anything about the epithets hurtled at the victim(criminal, in your eyes) in all this? Was "stupid", et al necessary? If not then why not give that equal time? If so then why is there a problem with my terms? Consistency, John, consistency. And, as I said before but you did not quote, what about all those other threads out there? Will you be policing them when lables like Militianut and tinfoil-hatter and such come out?

BTW, to answer your question directly, yes, I see it as necessary since I could not think on short notice of any other non-obscene term to use for them that also conveyed some degree of my displeasure with them and those like them. Left my thesaurus at home. Sorry.

[brickeyee]

I guess it is safe to assume that 2nd Amendment freely picks and chooses the laws he desires to obey. Anything he believes is not in conformance with a personal view can be freely ignored.

While a certain portion of people like to rant and rave about how they think it should be some of us work to try and get things changed.
There is a Virginia Citizens Defense League that likes to push issues. Open carry is allowed in Virginia. They packed a Falls Church City council meeting with members carrying. They made a point. ‘We can carry.’
They also made it that much harder to get productive things done. The Falls Church representatives may not have supported pro-gun positions, but you can be very sure they will now actively oppose them.

While the system may have problems, carrying into a school in flat defiance of the law is not a very productive way of going about changing things. A lot of work went into getting the change that goes into affect in July 2005. It still would not cover this guy.
A lot of work was performed to allow for rifles in racks on school grounds (students hunting before or after school needed this change).
The law banning carry into restaurants that serve alcohol is still in effect. A majority of the Public Safety & State Militia committee voted to hold it up. Nobody gets everything they want in a democracy.
The State Pre-emption law was passed to prevent localities from imposing any conditions on firearms ownership, transfer, or carrying. A number of localities were forced to give up harassing waiting periods (that they refused to abide by the limits in).
If you have a permit you can carry in the Virginia Statehouse. Without a permit you may not.
A hard line approach is rarely very productive in the Virginia legislature. Breaking the clearly stated law does not increase our standing.

[kbheiner7]

That's just a load of crap. If you carry all day, every day, it's easy to forget you've got a gun on. The guy was probably tired and made an honest mistake.

[TechBrute]

I guess it is safe to assume that 2nd Amendment freely picks and chooses the laws he desires to obey. And you know what happens when you assume... :neener:

[2nd Amendment]

I guess it is safe to assume that 2nd Amendment freely picks and chooses the laws he desires to obey. Anything he believes is not in conformance with a personal view can be freely ignored.

This is why debates online are so tiring. Can you back up your assertions using my words, in context in any way? centac made essentially the same claim and when called on it demurred. Of course, he obviously hadn't actually read what was said, either. How about you? Have you actually read anything here and if so can you support your claim?

Also, the repetitive accusations get tiring. I am involved in an endless number of groups, have run for public office, write both for free and professionally, etc. I have no doubt I am more involved and spend more money than you on both Second and First Amendment issues. I've had this discussion here before when someone wanted to infer I talk a lot. Fact is I do it all, including talking, which makes me very unpopular with those who wish us nasty extremists wouldn't rock the boat so much. It's a lot less painful losing ground a little at a time than getting folks like Falls Church all riled up, eh?

Lastly, only a hard line approach is ever successful. Anything else is compromise and compromise, time has shown, is almost without exception surrender by degrees.

[rock jock]

There is a very important part of this stroy missing, and that is what was exchanged between the resource officer and Tipton. If he was apologietic for violating the law and promised never to do it again, he might have been looking at a different fate. Either way, he brought this on himself.

BTW, if you are so used to carrying gun that you forget you have it on, you need to take it off.

[Risasi]

There is a very important part of this story missing, and that is what was exchanged between the resource officer and Tipton. If he was apologietic for violating the law and promised never to do it again, he might have been looking at a different fate. Either way, he brought this on himself.

BTW, if you are so used to carrying gun that you forget you have it on, you need to take it off.

No, it doesn't really matter what words were exchanged between in the officer and the aleged. And it's already obvious his intentions were not to shoot anyone. If that were so he would have done that, rather than put the weapon in his car.

Also I don't understand the second statement; if you are so used to carrying you forget you are wearing a gun it's time to take it off. What's that mean? He's too tired to carry? I didn't get it. Call me dense. Can you clarify?

------------------------------------------

Sheesh, I go work for a whole day and come back to this. All I really have to add is grampster put it better than I could. 2nd Amendment has taken a lot of criticism, unworthy no less.

I see the also that centac and brickeyee do NOT understand the Bill of Rights. And what they are and are not. I'll give you two a clue. The Bill of Rights do not grant you ANY rights whatsoever. They merely ACKNOWLEDGE them. And now far too many of the Nicolaos have taken a foot hold in the upper echelon of our federal system.

By the way I would like to know from you two how you rationalize the Boston Tea Party.

[centac]

"BTW, if you are so used to carrying gun that you forget you have it on, you need to take it off."

I know exactly what you mean - everyone preaches constant awareness of one's environment, but the best they can come up with for this guy is "Whoops, musta forgot...." Now THATS' a responsible gun user

2A, you didnt win that election, didya. :scrutiny:

[2nd Amendment]

So centac, you made some very specific claims about me and my intent. I've asked politely for you to either support your claims or withdraw them. You've offered to do neither. Your credibility will be much improved, even with those who support your "stance", if you rise to the occasion.

BTW, yeah, I've both won and lost. So tell us, since you and yours have decided to make it an issue, what have you done? Oh and also tell us why it is one side in these arguments can never manage to not take it to a personal level? I think it's obvious which side, don't you?

Oh, last item:

BTW, if you are so used to carrying gun that you forget you have it on, you need to take it off.

So when you carry you spend every moment of the time you are wearing it thinking about it, worrying about it and concerned with whether maybe you should take it off here or there? Odd, I put mine on and forget about it. Of course I also don't concern myself with where some people think I shouldn't wear it so that might give me an unfair advantage. Maybe if one is constantly focused on their CCW they are the ones who should take it off? That kind of nervousness causes accidents. (See how easy it is to take what one says and stretch it to levels it was never meant to go to?)

[gunsmith]

Yup! having un armed security and laws saying no guns in school (or on the Reservation) sure did prevent that Red Lake school shooting.

I never said the guy forgot he had a gun on.
He neglected to take it off,it was a simple mistake. This zero tolerance
BS is for anal retentive bureacratic busybodies.
He wasn't a school shooter,if one had appeared at the same time he was there with his gun he could have stopped him.
Didn't a teacher in Pearl Missippi grab his gun to stop a school shooter?
wasn't there a case in A Virginia law school in which students had to run to their car to get their gun to stop a school shooter? if they had disobeyed that stupid law the bad guy would have had armed resistance instead of disarmed victims

[Otherguy Overby]

Centac is a troll.

<snip>

It seems honorable members of THR wish to continue debating with the disingenuous.

[2nd Amendment]

*sigh*

And another thread bites the dust.

[rock jock]

So when you carry you spend every moment of the time you are wearing it thinking about it, worrying about it and concerned with whether maybe you should take it off here or there? Odd, I put mine on and forget about it. Of course I also don't concern myself with where some people think I shouldn't wear it so that might give me an unfair advantage. Maybe if one is constantly focused on their CCW they are the ones who should take it off? That kind of nervousness causes accidents. (See how easy it is to take what one says and stretch it to levels it was never meant to go to?)
Wow, you need to take a couple valium and chill.

First, I maintain awareness that I have my gun at all times. You don't have to consciously think "I have a gun" to remember that fact and act accordingly. However, if you let yourself become so accustomed to being armed that you don't recognize the additional legal responsibilities that come with it (including the need to know and obey the law on prohibited areas), then you most likely will forget your gun when it comes time to make use of it. Of course, maybe you are a super-tactical ultra ninja warrior that instiinctively goes into stealth defense mode when someone looks at you the wrong way. If so, great. The rest of us have to rely on basic human situational awareness.

Second, you really make yourself out to be quite the rebel when it comes to "not concerning yourself with where some people think you shouldn't wear it." I see this kind of chest-thumping a lot on THR, but I have yet to hear a single "Rosa Parks" case from any of you. Rosa Parks didn't sneak onto a bus and hide in the front. Her act of civil disobedience was open for all to see. THAT, by the way, is the essence of an act of civil disobedience. Carrying your gun hidden into a prohibited area and then snickering and patting yourself on the back is really pretty lame. If you want to show what a true patriot you are, why aren't you openly carrying an AK-47 onto the lawn of the White House, or the campus of a school, or into a courthouse. Then you make you cause known to the world, and bask in the glory that comes with being a martyr. As it is, your actions are equivalent to Rosa Parks climbing into the front seat of an empty bus.

[2nd Amendment]

Your first line is an example of the disingenius.

Your first para apparently indicates you didn't get the line where I asked if some of you could see how easy it is to take others words to extreme points.

The second para falls back to the disingenius. I don't worry about where I carry. First I am in Indiana, we made sure we don't generally have these kinds of legal problems. Second, I never sent my kids to the government camp so I don't have to think about this sort of thing. Third, there is no support for trying to tie any civil disobedience to acts performed outside the norm of a person's daily life(though there are questions about Parks herself). In other words, why would I go to DC with an AK and why would you try and claim such an example has any relevence in this discussion?

BTW, Indiana is an open carry state, so there's very little I can do that is "over the top" here. OTOH I have open carried on the job site in Illinois, because it was part of my daily life to be there. I've packed into the local courthouse and been tossed out on my ass, too(an example of the very point of this thread, if you get it). I'm still walking around. Would it be necessary to go knock on the sheriff's door to meet your definitions?

Now, do you think we can get back to the actual topic which is not ME nor what your assumptions are? I'll point out yet another problem in these arguments: The absolute need some people have to change the bloody subject.

Edited for flow and a couple points I left out

[JohnBT]

"If not then why not give that equal time?"

I don't know, I suppose because I haven't gotten around to it.
Go right on name calling. Nobody is stopping you, just making suggestions for a more genial discussion.

Of course, it's hard to have a genial discussion when one or two people stake out a position and defend it by repeatedly telling everyone else how wrongheaded they are.

Back to the article: "Tipton was informed once before that this was not permitted, Ball said." Poor guy can't even claim ignorance of the law - a law that is covered in the class you have to take to get the carry permit in Virginia.

<sigh>

I'd bet serious folding money that Rosa Parks wasn't a whiner.

John

[2nd Amendment]

Let me see, the man has been called in this thread an "idiot"(the first name slung, BTW), buffoon, stupid several times and that is just what I see in a quick scan. And yet you tell me to continue the name calling? Again I note the hypocrisy.

Oh, and then you apparently call him a "whiner", yourself. Of course I can't find anywhere where the guy has done any whining at all. Are we missing something or is this an example of you having not "gotten around to it yet"? :confused:

[Gunsnrovers]

Yep. I think I broke the ice with the first "idiot".

A) He was informed of the law when he got his CCW (or when renewed).

B) As someone who carries a sidearm for a living, he should know the laws effecting him in this area. It IS part of his job.

C) He was warned previously that carrying his sidearm on school property was illegal.

Strike 3.

Is the law a good one? That's a debate worth having.

After his first warning, he could have spent time and effort spearheading efforts to make change.

Looks like he may be spending that time making license plates instead.

[centac]

I have the outrageous gall to think that a responsible gun user know and follow the law.

I also believe that the law isnt a buffet, and you cant pick and choose which laws you'll deign to obey. That there is a system to change bad laws, and it doesnt involve anarchy.

But what do I know, being a troll and worse yet a JBT.

[brickeyee]

2nd Amendment,
I have read everything you posted here. It is a lot of misplaced constitutional argument that could be used as a defense, but has no case law to provide a backing.
I fully understand the bill of rights does not grant anything, but limits the power of the federal government to intrude on rights already possessed by the people.
I know what the second amendment says, and what it means. You have taken a very absolute position that while I believe is correct, is not practical in the politics present now.

I will not back off saying that the guy was stupid. That he violated the law (twice!). That he made himself subject to arrest, and that he got nailed.

At this point a lot of effort has gone into swinging the state legislature and the laws in Virginia back towards were they should be with respect to firearms. Ten years ago we did not have 'shall issue''. Now we do. It was not obtained by refusing to obey the existing law. It was obtained by careful persistent lobbying at the state level. The inequality of some local jurisdiction refusing to issue any permits while other issued freely was pointed out. One of the interesting items that came into play was the denial of a permit (at renewal) to Oliver North for ‘bad character’ re. Iran Contra. Virginia has a very liberal north and capital city, while the rest of the state tends to be pretty conservative. The liberal jurisdictions put a ‘wish list’ together every year. One of the things they desperately want back is local control of firearms. To prevent any further crap from them, state preemption was pushed through.
You can make all the Second Amendment arguments you want, the low level circuit courts in Virginia will not hear them. You will need to go to the appellate level, and probably the State Supreme Court to make that argument.
One of the arguments made against the ‘shall issue’ law was that it admitted the State had the power to regulate firearms carry. While I believe the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms (concealed or otherwise) you are not going to get anywhere with that argument in the courts or legislature here (or in most states). The right to regulate is now pretty deeply woven into state law and is of long standing. Stare Decis. The court is loath to overrule itself (at the federal or state level).
While some states pay attention to the enforceability of laws when they are assed (New Hampshire) the Virginia legislature is not required to directly address this. It may come up in debate (and often does), but difficulty in enforcing is not viewed as a reason to refrain from action. Catching murderers is often difficult. The law still exists.
You are welcome to use civil disobedience (and any other tool at your disposal) in Indiana to force your case. I believe we have chosen a more circumspect way to achieve our goals and so far have been very successful in obtaining the rights we seek to have restored in accordance with the Constitution both at the State and Federal levels.
The Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that the Bill of Rights does not provide an absolute protection for many actions. There is a famous quote that goes 'The Constitution is not a suicide pact'( Justice Robert Jackson in his dissent in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago). The Court has established a number of different levels of scrutiny that are required to be considered when a law infringes on Rights from ‘strict scrutiny of purpose’ to ‘overriding public interest’.
Absent a clear Second Amendment ruling that would invalidate every gun law (and could produce significant chaos) a reasoned approach to enforcing our Rights has been rather successful in Virginia.
This type of case does not aid the agenda of forcing the State to recognize the Rights we have.

[gunsmith]

maybe your not a troll (maybe you are).
However you're "TNKOTB"!, yup!
your the new kid on the block :neener:

Just FYI, John BT has already explained the origin of his name,and it has nothing to do with boot styles.

Please guys! hardly any of my threads have been shut down,lets keep this a civil debate..."cant we all get along" :evil:

[tyme]

Rock jock,

The only way I can engage in civil disobedience against onerous concealed carry laws is to open carry? Maybe Rosa Parks didn't engage in civil disobedience because she only stood up (or remained sitting) for her principles on the bus. If she really wanted segregation to end, she would also have drunk at whites-only water fountains and used whites-only bathrooms. :rolleyes: She wasn't trying to make a political statement. She was doing what she wanted to do and felt was natural, under the belief that she was entitled to do so.

Suppose there are xenophobic Red, Yellow, and Green races but 99% of Reds and Greens are red-green colorblind. By your logic, Reds should paint themselves yellow if they want to protest not being allowed on Greens-only busses, because otherwise they will not draw enough attention to their illegal status. :rolleyes: