thump_rrr
Member
My Dad taught me from a young age.
Don't lend your car, your gun, or your wife out to anyone
.
Don't lend your car, your gun, or your wife out to anyone
.
college student branded a criminal
- Thread starter Mrcymstr
- Start date
- Status
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Since people keep hurting themselves and others due to a lack of common sense, not with criminal intent, but by golly they still manage to do it.
More like branded stupid.
You'd think someone that worked at a college paper would have an awareness of legal implications of having a loaded firearm on campus. You'd hope a responsible adult wouldn't leave a weapon with ammunition in it stashed behind the couch at a college paper. Seems the young woman failed to exercise reasonable judgement.
Last edited:
Poor judgement? Yes. But in light of the government allowing guns to be sold/given to the Mexican cartel is far more serious than what this girl did. Her crime does not even compare to what the government did. No one, particularly Eric Holder is being held accountable!
browningguy
Member
For the jokers out there, you don't get to pick and choose which laws you are going to follow. She broke the law and may well do some time.
If you don't like the laws elect new politicians to change them, until then it's the law.
If you don't like the laws elect new politicians to change them, until then it's the law.
jerkface11
Member
I didn't say ignore the law if you don't like it. I WILL NOT call for an unjust unconstitutional law to be enforced on anyone though.
Does that apply to selling guns to Mexican cartels?
Does that apply to selling guns to Mexican cartels?
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
This is still an egotistical view which presents your determination of what is Constitutional as the deciding factor for whether laws are enforced. Hardly a lawful process.
Absolutely. If this college student was trafficking guns to illegal purchasers, we would still be here discussing how she broke the law.
Sent using Tapatalk
JRH6856
Member
To believe that requires not comprehending the purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
hermannr
Member
let's not get so judgemental. Anyone can make a mistake.
The law specifically has "intent" in the language (39.17.1309). I would be of the opinion that this person will be fine if she fights it. (I would hope she would fight it, if actually charged) Still a stupid law.
The state needs to change that law. When I was a kid we could bring our 22 or shotgun to elementary school for show and tell, shows now much things have changed. Now a college student can't even have a firearm in their car in parking lot in TN if the are not dropping off or picking up a student
The law specifically has "intent" in the language (39.17.1309). I would be of the opinion that this person will be fine if she fights it. (I would hope she would fight it, if actually charged) Still a stupid law.
The state needs to change that law. When I was a kid we could bring our 22 or shotgun to elementary school for show and tell, shows now much things have changed. Now a college student can't even have a firearm in their car in parking lot in TN if the are not dropping off or picking up a student
Poor judgement? Yes. But in light of the government allowing guns to be sold/given to the Mexican cartel is far more serious than what this girl did. Her crime does not even compare to what the government did. No one, particularly Eric Holder is being held accountable!
You're right. They're not even in the same ballpark. But how is that relevant? Should there be a nice amnesty for all crimes that don't live up to Holder's example? Would six months be long enough?
Carl N. Brown
Member
A local police detective (now deceased) caught some kids by the river smoking pot. He had them throw the pot in the river and gave them a good lecture on not screwing up their lives. From the way some of you guys speak, he should have followed the letter of the law and screwed those kids' lives up with drug convictions.
JRH6856
Member
There is the argument that the more lives are screwed up by convictions under a bad law, the more people will be motivated to change the law. Of course, in the case of felonies, the people whose lives are screwed up can't vote or hold office, so there isn't a lot they can do to change the law, and the people whose lives aren't screwed up usually can't be bothered.
IMO, all laws should be obeyed, but not all laws should be enforced.
Carl N. Brown
Member
http://www.timesnews.net/article/9042443 full story at:
http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/article.php?id=98339
"Weapon charge placed against student for gun found on ETSU campus", By Johnson City Press Staff, Published February 16th, 2012
One of the commenters raises the questions I had when I first heard of this:
The person borrowing the gun to use in a movie was the one [strike]responsible for[/strike] guilty of returning it (a) loaded (the gun was reported as found with empty chamber) and (b) on campus (rather than off campus which was where Shope transfered it to him). Shope appears "guilty" of trying to retrieve the gun and take it off campus.
Furthermore, most Tennesseans are familiar with the state "going armed" statute requiring the element of intent to go armed for offense (unconditional) or for defense without a permit, and state law recognizes non-weapon uses and possession of firearms as legal.
And some are making too much of the safety catch issue. A lot of folks in Tennessee with .303 Enfields do away with the problematic safety catch, and use the "half-cock" position of the striker as a safety, since most of us are familiar with leveraction rifles or singleshot shotguns. After retensioning the spring on my 1917 BSA No.1 MkIII* til it would stay "on" and not pop off, I elected to keep and use the safety catch on my .303, but some folks don't.
http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/article.php?id=98339
"Weapon charge placed against student for gun found on ETSU campus", By Johnson City Press Staff, Published February 16th, 2012
One of the commenters raises the questions I had when I first heard of this:
The person borrowing the gun to use in a movie was the one [strike]responsible for[/strike] guilty of returning it (a) loaded (the gun was reported as found with empty chamber) and (b) on campus (rather than off campus which was where Shope transfered it to him). Shope appears "guilty" of trying to retrieve the gun and take it off campus.
Furthermore, most Tennesseans are familiar with the state "going armed" statute requiring the element of intent to go armed for offense (unconditional) or for defense without a permit, and state law recognizes non-weapon uses and possession of firearms as legal.
And some are making too much of the safety catch issue. A lot of folks in Tennessee with .303 Enfields do away with the problematic safety catch, and use the "half-cock" position of the striker as a safety, since most of us are familiar with leveraction rifles or singleshot shotguns. After retensioning the spring on my 1917 BSA No.1 MkIII* til it would stay "on" and not pop off, I elected to keep and use the safety catch on my .303, but some folks don't.
JRH6856
Member
Logically, they are both guilty of illegally possessing the firearm on campus. The friend when he brought it on campus, and her when she accepted possession of it on campus.
jerkface11
Member
I said I will not call for them to be enforced. I didn't realize big brother needed my say so to do it.
bigfatdave
Member
how did the gun get through the metal detector?
obviously, if they want any credibility for their little "gun free zone" they would have an effective means of excluding firearms.
obviously, if they want any credibility for their little "gun free zone" they would have an effective means of excluding firearms.
BSA1
member
Interesting case and comments.
Is justice so blind as to ignore the intent of the accused and intent of the law? I suspect the hard liners who want to see this young lady prosecuted to the full extent of the law have the least amount of experience with the criminal justice system.
My first question is the filmaker that broke the law by bringing the gun on campus been charged? Equal justice demands that both be charged.
Second I am curious about the alledged five "live" rounds in the gun. My first thought is the news report accurate (we all know how knowledgable the media is about guns)? Were they loaded ammo, blanks (it was used in a movie so it seems likey) or duds?
Third is the gun even in working condition?
How many of know that a past conviction for a misdemeanor can be made to apply retroactively to bar you from owning a gun? 30 years ago when I was working the streets it was common for us to usually arrest the male in a domestic dispute to give him a place to sleep and give both parties a chance to cool down. The male would plea guilty the next day in court and pay a small fine. Then the law was changed not only to use domestic violence convictions (still a misdemeanor in many areas) bar ownership but it was applied retroactively. A lot of civilians not only lost their right to own guns but their jobs also, such as LEO's and security sensitive positions.
Another story of how the government expands it power. I use to work in a prison which banned cell phones from being brought in. Logical policy makes sense. We had lockers out in the lobby for staff to put personal possessions including cell phones before going pass the security checkpoint.
Then a few years ago they changed the power to banning cellphones from coming past the main entrance of the administration building. And if you realized you had the phone in your pocket before reaching the security checkpoint you could not go back outside and put in back in your car. For the first offense you got three days off with pay. Second offense, fired and got charged with a Class E felony.
The hard liners are saying right on, the employee knew the rules and deserves to be punished. However consider this. Our winters are brutal with high winds below zero wind chills common. So in the morning leaving the house I slip my phone in the pocket of my heavy winter coat. When I get out of car at work I forget I put my phone in coat pocket and with -10 below wind chill I make a dash for the warm building. I step inside the building, take my gloves off, put them in my pocket and, oh s**t, there is my cell phone and three days off or worse days off without pay.
Intent to break the law is not there. I have had some cellphones that were so small and light that I forgot I was carrying it until it rang. But it is zero tolerance policy.
My long winded point is for you hard liners is never get convicted of offense not matter how minor it seems as the government may use it against you in the future.
Is justice so blind as to ignore the intent of the accused and intent of the law? I suspect the hard liners who want to see this young lady prosecuted to the full extent of the law have the least amount of experience with the criminal justice system.
My first question is the filmaker that broke the law by bringing the gun on campus been charged? Equal justice demands that both be charged.
Second I am curious about the alledged five "live" rounds in the gun. My first thought is the news report accurate (we all know how knowledgable the media is about guns)? Were they loaded ammo, blanks (it was used in a movie so it seems likey) or duds?
Third is the gun even in working condition?
How many of know that a past conviction for a misdemeanor can be made to apply retroactively to bar you from owning a gun? 30 years ago when I was working the streets it was common for us to usually arrest the male in a domestic dispute to give him a place to sleep and give both parties a chance to cool down. The male would plea guilty the next day in court and pay a small fine. Then the law was changed not only to use domestic violence convictions (still a misdemeanor in many areas) bar ownership but it was applied retroactively. A lot of civilians not only lost their right to own guns but their jobs also, such as LEO's and security sensitive positions.
Another story of how the government expands it power. I use to work in a prison which banned cell phones from being brought in. Logical policy makes sense. We had lockers out in the lobby for staff to put personal possessions including cell phones before going pass the security checkpoint.
Then a few years ago they changed the power to banning cellphones from coming past the main entrance of the administration building. And if you realized you had the phone in your pocket before reaching the security checkpoint you could not go back outside and put in back in your car. For the first offense you got three days off with pay. Second offense, fired and got charged with a Class E felony.
The hard liners are saying right on, the employee knew the rules and deserves to be punished. However consider this. Our winters are brutal with high winds below zero wind chills common. So in the morning leaving the house I slip my phone in the pocket of my heavy winter coat. When I get out of car at work I forget I put my phone in coat pocket and with -10 below wind chill I make a dash for the warm building. I step inside the building, take my gloves off, put them in my pocket and, oh s**t, there is my cell phone and three days off or worse days off without pay.
Intent to break the law is not there. I have had some cellphones that were so small and light that I forgot I was carrying it until it rang. But it is zero tolerance policy.
My long winded point is for you hard liners is never get convicted of offense not matter how minor it seems as the government may use it against you in the future.
It bothers me that so many people think that those who break the law deserve whatever the government gives them. In my experience, the law rarely lines up with what is right and wrong. Instead it is an arbitrary bureaucratic mess that punishes those who don't hurt others.
There is no such thing as a victimless crime IMHO. If you don't hurt anyone, even if you are stupid, you don't deserve to be punished.
There is no such thing as a victimless crime IMHO. If you don't hurt anyone, even if you are stupid, you don't deserve to be punished.
razorback2003
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
The girl did not have 'intent to go armed' when possessing the rifle. Possessing a firearm with 'intent to go armed' is a felony in TN on school and college campuses. Just 'possessing' without intent to go armed is a B level misdemeanor. Intent to go armed involves having a weapon for 'offensive or defensive use'.
Hopefully the girl at most gets the B Misdemeanor because just by the story she was just possessing the firearm. Not smart to have it loaded and unattended, but does that mean she should be convicted of a felony? Of course not that is pretty stiff when it is obvious she did not have 'intent to go armed'.
Hopefully the girl at most gets the B Misdemeanor because just by the story she was just possessing the firearm. Not smart to have it loaded and unattended, but does that mean she should be convicted of a felony? Of course not that is pretty stiff when it is obvious she did not have 'intent to go armed'.
zombie killer
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2
If being stupid was a criminal act, than half the country would be in jail…. Unfortunately it’s not.
This woman doesn’t even belong having a gun in her possession since she doesn’t even know basic firearm safety. The first thing you do when you receive a gun from someone is to open the action to make sure it is not loaded. If she did know this than way would she have a loaded weapon on campus unless she planned on using it? Was there intent on her part to do harm? Who knows, why did she resign, was she forced to? May be she was disgruntled, intended to use it, then changed her mind. I don’t agree with all the Feds and their laws, but I do obey them. If I choose to break them then I choose to accept the consequences. This woman worked for the school news paper; even if she didn’t can you honestly tell me that in this day and age she didn’t know bringing any type of a gun onto a school campus was illegal? Laws are there for a reason we may not agree with them but we must obey them. I don’t particularly care for the law governing class III firearms; I personally think I am responsible enough to handle these weapons or devices. But if we didn’t have this law than someone like this lady might bring in that brand new box of road flares with the digital timer on them that tells when they will expire! (For those of you new to sarcasms, that would be a BOMB!!!!)
This woman doesn’t even belong having a gun in her possession since she doesn’t even know basic firearm safety. The first thing you do when you receive a gun from someone is to open the action to make sure it is not loaded. If she did know this than way would she have a loaded weapon on campus unless she planned on using it? Was there intent on her part to do harm? Who knows, why did she resign, was she forced to? May be she was disgruntled, intended to use it, then changed her mind. I don’t agree with all the Feds and their laws, but I do obey them. If I choose to break them then I choose to accept the consequences. This woman worked for the school news paper; even if she didn’t can you honestly tell me that in this day and age she didn’t know bringing any type of a gun onto a school campus was illegal? Laws are there for a reason we may not agree with them but we must obey them. I don’t particularly care for the law governing class III firearms; I personally think I am responsible enough to handle these weapons or devices. But if we didn’t have this law than someone like this lady might bring in that brand new box of road flares with the digital timer on them that tells when they will expire! (For those of you new to sarcasms, that would be a BOMB!!!!)
JTHunter
Member
The last paragraph of the article shows just how bad a mistake this young woman made.
JRH6856
Member
^^^^ It was an Enfield. Some of them are safer without safeties because the safety won't stay on. Use half-cock instead. (I think this was mentioned earlier in the thread).
almherdfan
Member
I am surprised and chagrined at the comments from some on "The High Road" who have chosen a poor champion of gun ownership.
I was taught to store my unused firearms, unloaded, securely, in a location under my control.
There were so many mistakes made in this debacle it's hard to keep it straight. The first was loaning the weapon without insuring that it would be used safely and legally. The second was allowing it to be transported unsecured and loaded. The third was taking possesionn of it in a prohibited area. The fourth was not unloading it. The fifth was leaving it in an area where unauthorized (and untrained) personnel had access to it. I'm sure there are more.
It's all well and good to promote civil disobediance, but this case is just about poor judgment, careless behavior and very casual firearms handling.
We must hold ourselves (gun owners) to the highest standards or we lose the high road. We cannot excuse or defend bad behavior just because she is a member of our tribe. Freedom without responsibility cannot be sustained.
I was taught to store my unused firearms, unloaded, securely, in a location under my control.
There were so many mistakes made in this debacle it's hard to keep it straight. The first was loaning the weapon without insuring that it would be used safely and legally. The second was allowing it to be transported unsecured and loaded. The third was taking possesionn of it in a prohibited area. The fourth was not unloading it. The fifth was leaving it in an area where unauthorized (and untrained) personnel had access to it. I'm sure there are more.
It's all well and good to promote civil disobediance, but this case is just about poor judgment, careless behavior and very casual firearms handling.
We must hold ourselves (gun owners) to the highest standards or we lose the high road. We cannot excuse or defend bad behavior just because she is a member of our tribe. Freedom without responsibility cannot be sustained.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked