Beach parent is charged with taking gun to school

[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.

 

[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]

The Red Lake shooter violated the law

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]

You've been trolled

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"?

 

[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]

Yeah, I'm a Troll

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]

don't get to upset centac

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

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"

 

[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. 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.