Beach parent is charged with taking gun to school

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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... :(
 
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.
 
2A,

above3.gif


As usual, you and I are on the same page.
 
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.
 
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.....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...?
 
"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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top