INTENT
-
switzer did not have a permit....
not even an analogous situation.
Sure it is. They both tried to go through airport security with a gun. Having a permit is completely irrelevent in that situation. Whatever consequences Rogers faces will not be mitigated one bit by the fact that he had a permit, nor enhanced one bit because had he not had one.
-
switzer did not have a permit....
not even an analogous situation.
Sure it is. They both tried to go through airport security with a gun. Having a permit is completely irrelevent in that situation. Whatever consequences Rogers faces will not be mitigated one bit by the fact that he had a permit, nor enhanced one bit because had he not had one.
Sure it is. They both tried to go through airport security with a gun. Having a permit is completely irrelevent in that situation. Whatever consequences Rogers faces will not be mitigated one bit by the fact that he had a permit, nor enhanced one bit because had he not had one.
It might be no different insofar as being charged with trying to take a gun through airport security. It might also cause the prosecutor to charge him with a lesser charge because he does have a permit.
But they won't be able to charge him for having a concealed gun, or having one illegally, because with a permit, you can legally own and conceal/carry a gun. My primary question to this, though, which might make this point moot, does a Michigan conceal/carry permit the same in Ohio? If not, then he wasn't even legally carrying/concealing the gun.
-
Sure it is. They both tried to go through airport security with a gun. Having a permit is completely irrelevent in that situation. Whatever consequences Rogers faces will not be mitigated one bit by the fact that he had a permit, nor enhanced one bit because had he not had one.
It might be no different insofar as being charged with trying to take a gun through airport security. It might also cause the prosecutor to charge him with a lesser charge because he does have a permit.
But they won't be able to charge him for having a concealed gun, or having one illegally, because with a permit, you can legally own and conceal/carry a gun. My primary question to this, though, which might make this point moot, does a Michigan conceal/carry permit the same in Ohio? If not, then he wasn't even legally carrying/concealing the gun.
It might be no different insofar as being charged with trying to take a gun through airport security. It might also cause the prosecutor to charge him with a lesser charge because he does have a permit.
But they won't be able to charge him for having a concealed gun, or having one illegally, because with a permit, you can legally own and conceal/carry a gun. My primary question to this, though, which might make this point moot, does a Michigan conceal/carry permit the same in Ohio? If not, then he wasn't even legally carrying/concealing the gun.
You are totally missing the damn point. It is my understanding that the airport is a federal facility. Attempting to carry a gun onto an aircraft, intentional or not, may in fact be a Federal offense. The Feds don't give a rat's ass about your state issued permit whether it is issued in Ohio, Michigan, or BumFrak Arkansas. The Feds have primacy. You might also get hit with a state charge, but the Feds don't care if you do or you don't.
That is why I say, with the Patriot Act which was not in effect when Switzer did his thing, it could be a whole different ballgame for Rogers.
The only thing that may mitigate the situation is that he clearly had no malicious intent, and the gun didn't go off, like it did with idjit Plaxixo Burress. But, it being cocked and loaded, that could be a factor against him.
-
then your understanding is wrong.....
the secure side...ie, past the security checkpoint, is federal territory. the landside terminal is not federal jurisdiction, and perfectly legal to carry a firearm with the proper permit as per state laws.
so, no...rogers was NOT in federal jurisdiction. now, if he got thru security with the firearm and it was THEN discovered in his possession, he'd be in jail immediately.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-1...752672054_x.htm
so, i am under the impression that you do not understand gun laws, let alone the patriot act. how about condemning the guy after you understand just which tree you are barking up.
-
OK, to resolve some of this, here is the text of the statute Rogers could be hit with:
§ 46505. Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft
(a) Definition.— In this section, “loaded firearm” means a starter gun or a weapon designed or converted to expel a projectile through an explosive, that has a cartridge, a detonator, or powder in the chamber, magazine, cylinder, or clip.
(
General Criminal Penalty.— An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, if the individual— (1) when on, or attempting to get on, an aircraft in, or intended for operation in, air transportation or intrastate air transportation, has on or about the individual or the property of the individual a concealed dangerous weapon that is or would be accessible to the individual in flight;
(2) has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed a loaded firearm on that aircraft in property not accessible to passengers in flight; or
(3) has on or about the individual, or has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed on that aircraft, an explosive or incendiary device.
Criminal Penalty Involving Disregard for Human Life.— An individual who willfully and without regard for the safety of human life, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, violates subsection ( of this section, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (d) Nonapplication.— Subsection (
(1) of this section does not apply to— (1) a law enforcement officer of a State or political subdivision of a State, or an officer or employee of the United States Government, authorized to carry arms in an official capacity;
(2) another individual the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security by regulation authorizes to carry a dangerous weapon in air transportation or intrastate air transportation; or
(3) an individual transporting a weapon (except a loaded firearm) in baggage not accessible to a passenger in flight if the air carrier was informed of the presence of the weapon.
(e) Conspiracy.— If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (
or , and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in such subsection. OK, some notes here:
1. It is a federal offense. This is the Federal Statute.
2. It does not make any exception for the fact that the person may have a permit. The only exceptions are for law enforcement officers or Federal Marshalls and the like; or, if the person has packed an unloaded weapon in his checked baggage, not his carry-on, and has informed the carrier that the weapon is packed in checked luggage.
3. If it was deemed intentional, or reckless, the penalty could increase from 10 to 20 years. The information about Rogers weapon being loaded and cocked COULD throw his case into this latter "reckless" category. That is why it may be significant.
4. Thus, for those of you who think this is no big deal because he had a permit, or because he didn't "mean" to do it, here is what I have to say: STFU. If the Feds, or the TSA really want his ass, they have his ass.
5. The real question is one of jurisdiction. Because the Feds CAN bring a charge under this severe regulation doesn't necessarily mean the WILL bring a Federal Indictment. If they choose, I guess it is possible that they could allow him to be prosecuted under only state statutes. That would be one big MFing favor they might do for him. I guess we shall see.
-
Some of the dimwits in here seem to think if you have a "concealed carry" permit in Ohio, that means you can carry a weapon into an International Airport. Wrong. I think he will probably be slapped on his fat assed wrist, but if it were you, with the Ohio Concealed Carry permit, it wouldn't mean squat before the Federal Magistrate. Grow the fook up.
-
Some of the dimwits in here seem to think if you have a "concealed carry" permit in Ohio, that means you can carry a weapon into an International Airport. Wrong. I think he will probably be slapped on his fat assed wrist, but if it were you, with the Ohio Concealed Carry permit, it wouldn't mean squat before the Federal Magistrate. Grow the fook up.
Some of the dimwits in here seem to think if you have a "concealed carry" permit in Ohio, that means you can carry a weapon into an International Airport. Wrong. I think he will probably be slapped on his fat assed wrist, but if it were you, with the Ohio Concealed Carry permit, it wouldn't mean squat before the Federal Magistrate. Grow the fook up.
I will say this however...based on my google research, Rogers is not yet charged in Federal Court. He is only charged with a 4th degree felony in Cleveland Municipal Court.
Fyi, all charges, felonies and Misdemeanors are initially brought through Municipal Court. At the Muni court level, he may have an opportunity to negotiate a plea to a misdemeanor. If that negotiaion breaks down however, his case would be referred to a Grand Jury where he could be indicted on the Felony. His case would then be heard in Common Pleas Court, where he could negotiate a plea, or have a trial.
Most likely scenario....he negotiates a reduction to a Misd. and he goes home with his tail between his legs.
Now, the Feds COULD still indict him....but based on what I am seeing and hearing, I would not wager that that would happen. They don't probably see him as a bad guy. Just a F**kup. (which, by the way is official legal terminology...consults Black's Legal online dictionary). The Feds will probably not want to waste there resources on him.
Of course, the guy that very well squeeze his balls the hardest is Roger Goodell.
-
By the way, here is that link to that law dictionary. You can look it up yourself:
http://www.blackslawdictionary.com/
That may not actually work as it is only a come on, buy our product site. See this instead:
-
OK, to resolve some of this, here is the text of the statute Rogers could be hit with:
§ 46505. Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft
(a) Definition.— In this section, “loaded firearm” means a starter gun or a weapon designed or converted to expel a projectile through an explosive, that has a cartridge, a detonator, or powder in the chamber, magazine, cylinder, or clip.
(
General Criminal Penalty.— An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, if the individual— (1) when on, or attempting to get on, an aircraft in, or intended for operation in, air transportation or intrastate air transportation, has on or about the individual or the property of the individual a concealed dangerous weapon that is or would be accessible to the individual in flight;
(2) has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed a loaded firearm on that aircraft in property not accessible to passengers in flight; or
(3) has on or about the individual, or has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed on that aircraft, an explosive or incendiary device.
Criminal Penalty Involving Disregard for Human Life.— An individual who willfully and without regard for the safety of human life, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, violates subsection ( of this section, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (d) Nonapplication.— Subsection (
(1) of this section does not apply to— (1) a law enforcement officer of a State or political subdivision of a State, or an officer or employee of the United States Government, authorized to carry arms in an official capacity;
(2) another individual the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security by regulation authorizes to carry a dangerous weapon in air transportation or intrastate air transportation; or
(3) an individual transporting a weapon (except a loaded firearm) in baggage not accessible to a passenger in flight if the air carrier was informed of the presence of the weapon.
(e) Conspiracy.— If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (
or , and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in such subsection. OK, some notes here:
1. It is a federal offense. This is the Federal Statute.
2. It does not make any exception for the fact that the person may have a permit. The only exceptions are for law enforcement officers or Federal Marshalls and the like; or, if the person has packed an unloaded weapon in his checked baggage, not his carry-on, and has informed the carrier that the weapon is packed in checked luggage.
3. If it was deemed intentional, or reckless, the penalty could increase from 10 to 20 years. The information about Rogers weapon being loaded and cocked COULD throw his case into this latter "reckless" category. That is why it may be significant.
4. Thus, for those of you who think this is no big deal because he had a permit, or because he didn't "mean" to do it, here is what I have to say: STFU. If the Feds, or the TSA really want his ass, they have his ass.
5. The real question is one of jurisdiction. Because the Feds CAN bring a charge under this severe regulation doesn't necessarily mean the WILL bring a Federal Indictment. If they choose, I guess it is possible that they could allow him to be prosecuted under only state statutes. That would be one big MFing favor they might do for him. I guess we shall see.
OK, to resolve some of this, here is the text of the statute Rogers could be hit with:
§ 46505. Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft
(a) Definition.— In this section, “loaded firearm” means a starter gun or a weapon designed or converted to expel a projectile through an explosive, that has a cartridge, a detonator, or powder in the chamber, magazine, cylinder, or clip.
(
General Criminal Penalty.— An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, if the individual— (1) when on, or attempting to get on, an aircraft in, or intended for operation in, air transportation or intrastate air transportation, has on or about the individual or the property of the individual a concealed dangerous weapon that is or would be accessible to the individual in flight;
(2) has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed a loaded firearm on that aircraft in property not accessible to passengers in flight; or
(3) has on or about the individual, or has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed on that aircraft, an explosive or incendiary device.
Criminal Penalty Involving Disregard for Human Life.— An individual who willfully and without regard for the safety of human life, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, violates subsection ( of this section, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (d) Nonapplication.— Subsection (
(1) of this section does not apply to— (1) a law enforcement officer of a State or political subdivision of a State, or an officer or employee of the United States Government, authorized to carry arms in an official capacity;
(2) another individual the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security by regulation authorizes to carry a dangerous weapon in air transportation or intrastate air transportation; or
(3) an individual transporting a weapon (except a loaded firearm) in baggage not accessible to a passenger in flight if the air carrier was informed of the presence of the weapon.
(e) Conspiracy.— If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (
or , and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in such subsection. OK, some notes here:
1. It is a federal offense. This is the Federal Statute.
2. It does not make any exception for the fact that the person may have a permit. The only exceptions are for law enforcement officers or Federal Marshalls and the like; or, if the person has packed an unloaded weapon in his checked baggage, not his carry-on, and has informed the carrier that the weapon is packed in checked luggage.
3. If it was deemed intentional, or reckless, the penalty could increase from 10 to 20 years. The information about Rogers weapon being loaded and cocked COULD throw his case into this latter "reckless" category. That is why it may be significant.
4. Thus, for those of you who think this is no big deal because he had a permit, or because he didn't "mean" to do it, here is what I have to say: STFU. If the Feds, or the TSA really want his ass, they have his ass.
5. The real question is one of jurisdiction. Because the Feds CAN bring a charge under this severe regulation doesn't necessarily mean the WILL bring a Federal Indictment. If they choose, I guess it is possible that they could allow him to be prosecuted under only state statutes. That would be one big MFing favor they might do for him. I guess we shall see.
Your point is well taken, but I am not sure you fully have grasped what others are saying. I'm not sure I know the right or wrong of the points either way, but here is what I'm seeing from a layman's perspective...
One guy says that you gotta get through security before its Federal...
You came up with the Federal Statute...
My question is this... What is considered "attempting to get on an aircraft" legally?
Now a layman might say, that if you are buying a ticket and processing through security, that you are attempting to board an aircraft.
But legally, it might mean exactly what it does literally. Attempting to board an aircraft. Physically walking down the causeway and entering the hatch of an airplane.
I don't know what the legal definition is. But before you go off on us, you better be damn sure you understand ALL the legal implications and definitions. If I remember correctly, you are, or have been a lawyer. If so, you know that these things are important.
-
Some of the dimwits in here seem to think if you have a "concealed carry" permit in Ohio, that means you can carry a weapon into an International Airport. Wrong. I think he will probably be slapped on his fat assed wrist, but if it were you, with the Ohio Concealed Carry permit, it wouldn't mean squat before the Federal Magistrate. Grow the fook up.
I will say this however...based on my google research, Rogers is not yet charged in Federal Court. He is only charged with a 4th degree felony in Cleveland Municipal Court.
Fyi, all charges, felonies and Misdemeanors are initially brought through Municipal Court. At the Muni court level, he may have an opportunity to negotiate a plea to a misdemeanor. If that negotiaion breaks down however, his case would be referred to a Grand Jury where he could be indicted on the Felony. His case would then be heard in Common Pleas Court, where he could negotiate a plea, or have a trial.
Most likely scenario....he negotiates a reduction to a Misd. and he goes home with his tail between his legs.
Now, the Feds COULD still indict him....but based on what I am seeing and hearing, I would not wager that that would happen. They don't probably see him as a bad guy. Just a F**kup. (which, by the way is official legal terminology...consults Black's Legal online dictionary). The Feds will probably not want to waste there resources on him.
Of course, the guy that very well squeeze his balls the hardest is Roger Goodell.
I will say this however...based on my google research, Rogers is not yet charged in Federal Court. He is only charged with a 4th degree felony in Cleveland Municipal Court.
Fyi, all charges, felonies and Misdemeanors are initially brought through Municipal Court. At the Muni court level, he may have an opportunity to negotiate a plea to a misdemeanor. If that negotiaion breaks down however, his case would be referred to a Grand Jury where he could be indicted on the Felony. His case would then be heard in Common Pleas Court, where he could negotiate a plea, or have a trial.
Most likely scenario....he negotiates a reduction to a Misd. and he goes home with his tail between his legs.
Now, the Feds COULD still indict him....but based on what I am seeing and hearing, I would not wager that that would happen. They don't probably see him as a bad guy. Just a F**kup. (which, by the way is official legal terminology...consults Black's Legal online dictionary). The Feds will probably not want to waste there resources on him.
Of course, the guy that very well squeeze his balls the hardest is Roger Goodell.
I agree....the Feds aren't going to give it legs past the local level unless some bombshell is uncovered. Federal prosecutors are pretty good at spotting a potential terrorist who needs to feel the weight of the court, and the town goof.
-
I think you misunderstand the context in which I use "fair".
It isn't fair in the context I use because there is no answer he could give which would satisfy people who would ask the question in the first place.
You do it in your own reply, equating carrying a gun to cheating on your wife or driving drunk.
There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun while there clearly is with the others.
He is in trouble for his cavalier attitude about the weapon .
There absolutely is something wrong with carrying a gun in an improper manner and in improper places. And his cavalier attitude led to an illegal action.....so it is natural to ask....Why do you feel the need to carry a gun when he carried it illegally and cavalierly. Why shouldn't that question be asked? They can ask: why do you prefer vanilla over chocolate? or do you prefer briefs or boxers? are you a Republican or a Democrat? do you believe in capital punishment? etc. etc. He is a public person and can be asked those questions, and they are fully fair.
And, if he is asked the question: Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? ...and his answer is "for self protection because other Professional Athletes have been assaulted/killed/carjacked....I don't see how that could not be a satisfactory answer. Why do you feel he should be so defensive about it? If his answer is "because I want to prove what a man I am and that I want to roll with my homeys who are all also packing" well, that is an answer I think the public would have a right to know. So, I don't think these gun toters should hide behind a bare statement that "I got a right to carry one".
I got a right to say "F**K you, pussy", but if I say that to him, I think I should justify why I did. Rights can be exercised, but they are not necessarily a shield for a lack of responsibility.
There absolutely is something wrong with carrying a gun in an improper manner and in improper places. And his cavalier attitude led to an illegal action.....so it is natural to ask....Why do you feel the need to carry a gun when he carried it illegally and cavalierly. Why shouldn't that question be asked? They can ask: why do you prefer vanilla over chocolate? or do you prefer briefs or boxers? are you a Republican or a Democrat? do you believe in capital punishment? etc. etc. He is a public person and can be asked those questions, and they are fully fair.
Why do i as a "gun toter" have to explain why I feel a need to carry a firearm. Why do you feel the need to speak freely about how you feel about guns. Its just your basic rights. That one is right next to the 2nd. amendment. You know the "rights" that we have. So xxxxYouPussy for expressing yourself. edit*And, if he is asked the question: Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? ...and his answer is "for self protection because other Professional Athletes have been assaulted/killed/carjacked....I don't see how that could not be a satisfactory answer. Why do you feel he should be so defensive about it? If his answer is "because I want to prove what a man I am and that I want to roll with my homeys who are all also packing" well, that is an answer I think the public would have a right to know. So, I don't think these gun toters should hide behind a bare statement that "I got a right to carry one".
I got a right to say "F**K you, pussy", but if I say that to him, I think I should justify why I did. Rights can be exercised, but they are not necessarily a shield for a lack of responsibility.
But seriously My question would be why is the law in place that he is guilty of. I can't pick and choose where I might need to protect my family so in my I can't pick and choose where I carry my gun. And since I have a right to bear arms, and not "a right to bear arms after you pay a bunch of money for a class and then pay more for an application fee, and you can't carry it here and here and here.(Thats so the mass murderers will no where to attack people.) You shouldn't be able to tell me where I can and cannot take it.
I will finish with this
Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them they go away.
Like Granny always said- "If you can't be good...Be good at It." -
Gipper do you own any guns?
why wouldn't you carry a semi-auto cocked and loaded. You wouldn't tell the assailant hold on I wanna load and cock my gun. No if you draw you wanna just be able to pull the trigger. Obviously you don't wanna have to draw but if you do you don't want any slow downs. I always carry my semi-auto chambered locked stocked and ready to rock
-
There absolutely is something wrong with carrying a gun in an improper manner and in improper places. And his cavalier attitude led to an illegal action.....so it is natural to ask....Why do you feel the need to carry a gun when he carried it illegally and cavalierly. Why shouldn't that question be asked? They can ask: why do you prefer vanilla over chocolate? or do you prefer briefs or boxers? are you a Republican or a Democrat? do you believe in capital punishment? etc. etc. He is a public person and can be asked those questions, and they are fully fair.
Why do i as a "gun toter" have to explain why I feel a need to carry a firearm. Why do you feel the need to speak freely about how you feel about guns. Its just your basic rights. That one is right next to the 2nd. amendment. You know the "rights" that we have. So xxxxYouPussy for expressing yourself. edit*And, if he is asked the question: Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? ...and his answer is "for self protection because other Professional Athletes have been assaulted/killed/carjacked....I don't see how that could not be a satisfactory answer. Why do you feel he should be so defensive about it? If his answer is "because I want to prove what a man I am and that I want to roll with my homeys who are all also packing" well, that is an answer I think the public would have a right to know. So, I don't think these gun toters should hide behind a bare statement that "I got a right to carry one".
I got a right to say "F**K you, pussy", but if I say that to him, I think I should justify why I did. Rights can be exercised, but they are not necessarily a shield for a lack of responsibility.
But seriously My question would be why is the law in place that he is guilty of. I can't pick and choose where I might need to protect my family so in my I can't pick and choose where I carry my gun. And since I have a right to bear arms, and not "a right to bear arms after you pay a bunch of money for a class and then pay more for an application fee, and you can't carry it here and here and here.(Thats so the mass murderers will no where to attack people.) You shouldn't be able to tell me where I can and cannot take it.
I will finish with this
Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them they go away.
Why do i as a "gun toter" have to explain why I feel a need to carry a firearm. Why do you feel the need to speak freely about how you feel about guns. Its just your basic rights. That one is right next to the 2nd. amendment. You know the "rights" that we have. So xxxxYouPussy for expressing yourself. edit*
But seriously My question would be why is the law in place that he is guilty of. I can't pick and choose where I might need to protect my family so in my I can't pick and choose where I carry my gun. And since I have a right to bear arms, and not "a right to bear arms after you pay a bunch of money for a class and then pay more for an application fee, and you can't carry it here and here and here.(Thats so the mass murderers will no where to attack people.) You shouldn't be able to tell me where I can and cannot take it.
I will finish with this
Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them they go away.
While I agree in some ways, there should be some limits....planes aren't a good place to allow people to carry firearms, and I am a 42 year member of the NRA.
-
Why do i as a "gun toter" have to explain why I feel a need to carry a firearm. Why do you feel the need to speak freely about how you feel about guns. Its just your basic rights. That one is right next to the 2nd. amendment. You know the "rights" that we have. So xxxxYouPussy for expressing yourself. edit*
But seriously My question would be why is the law in place that he is guilty of. I can't pick and choose where I might need to protect my family so in my I can't pick and choose where I carry my gun. And since I have a right to bear arms, and not "a right to bear arms after you pay a bunch of money for a class and then pay more for an application fee, and you can't carry it here and here and here.(Thats so the mass murderers will no where to attack people.) You shouldn't be able to tell me where I can and cannot take it.
I will finish with this
Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them they go away.
While I agree in some ways, there should be some limits....planes aren't a good place to allow people to carry firearms, and I am a 42 year member of the NRA.
While I agree in some ways, there should be some limits....planes aren't a good place to allow people to carry firearms, and I am a 42 year member of the NRA.
I have to agree. I love my guns but there is just some places that guns shouldnt be ie schools, stadiums, planes, post offices
-
although I do believe discretion is the better part of valor, My argument is that you don't do anything but harm law abiding citizens when you try and control guns, because the criminals don't give a damn about the laws and will use guns anyhow. I really believe that good people will you discretion But you don't force them to do something. Especially like a said before it is a fundamental right we have. Right there plack and white. Right to Bear Arms
Until I harm someone else I am guilty of nothing. I shouldn't feel like a god damn criminal just because I want to protect my family as well as myself.
-
this is classic off the topic shite. i hope we all here agree on one thing and that is we want our browns to win. having said that let me say this "at the end of the day" i will not protrude your sisters' ass. well maybe.
m203 grenade launcher, m16 rifle, .45 before it was .9mm (cuz i drove a dopey frickin cpt. around......pratt!!! you're riding my clutch!!) and a romanian fpk sniper rifle courtesy of my jim beam drinking buddies in the 10th special forces. nothing like seeing a watermelon explode at 400+ yards.
very liberal, love everyone until you step on my shit.
-
OK, to resolve some of this, here is the text of the statute Rogers could be hit with:
§ 46505. Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft
(a) Definition.— In this section, “loaded firearm” means a starter gun or a weapon designed or converted to expel a projectile through an explosive, that has a cartridge, a detonator, or powder in the chamber, magazine, cylinder, or clip.
(
General Criminal Penalty.— An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, if the individual— (1) when on, or attempting to get on, an aircraft in, or intended for operation in, air transportation or intrastate air transportation, has on or about the individual or the property of the individual a concealed dangerous weapon that is or would be accessible to the individual in flight;
(2) has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed a loaded firearm on that aircraft in property not accessible to passengers in flight; or
(3) has on or about the individual, or has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed on that aircraft, an explosive or incendiary device.
Criminal Penalty Involving Disregard for Human Life.— An individual who willfully and without regard for the safety of human life, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, violates subsection ( of this section, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (d) Nonapplication.— Subsection (
(1) of this section does not apply to— (1) a law enforcement officer of a State or political subdivision of a State, or an officer or employee of the United States Government, authorized to carry arms in an official capacity;
(2) another individual the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security by regulation authorizes to carry a dangerous weapon in air transportation or intrastate air transportation; or
(3) an individual transporting a weapon (except a loaded firearm) in baggage not accessible to a passenger in flight if the air carrier was informed of the presence of the weapon.
(e) Conspiracy.— If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (
or , and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in such subsection. OK, some notes here:
1. It is a federal offense. This is the Federal Statute.
2. It does not make any exception for the fact that the person may have a permit. The only exceptions are for law enforcement officers or Federal Marshalls and the like; or, if the person has packed an unloaded weapon in his checked baggage, not his carry-on, and has informed the carrier that the weapon is packed in checked luggage.
3. If it was deemed intentional, or reckless, the penalty could increase from 10 to 20 years. The information about Rogers weapon being loaded and cocked COULD throw his case into this latter "reckless" category. That is why it may be significant.
4. Thus, for those of you who think this is no big deal because he had a permit, or because he didn't "mean" to do it, here is what I have to say: STFU. If the Feds, or the TSA really want his ass, they have his ass.
5. The real question is one of jurisdiction. Because the Feds CAN bring a charge under this severe regulation doesn't necessarily mean the WILL bring a Federal Indictment. If they choose, I guess it is possible that they could allow him to be prosecuted under only state statutes. That would be one big MFing favor they might do for him. I guess we shall see.
Your point is well taken, but I am not sure you fully have grasped what others are saying. I'm not sure I know the right or wrong of the points either way, but here is what I'm seeing from a layman's perspective...
One guy says that you gotta get through security before its Federal...
You came up with the Federal Statute...
My question is this... What is considered "attempting to get on an aircraft" legally?
Now a layman might say, that if you are buying a ticket and processing through security, that you are attempting to board an aircraft.
But legally, it might mean exactly what it does literally. Attempting to board an aircraft. Physically walking down the causeway and entering the hatch of an airplane.
I don't know what the legal definition is. But before you go off on us, you better be damn sure you understand ALL the legal implications and definitions. If I remember correctly, you are, or have been a lawyer. If so, you know that these things are important.
Your point is well taken, but I am not sure you fully have grasped what others are saying. I'm not sure I know the right or wrong of the points either way, but here is what I'm seeing from a layman's perspective...
One guy says that you gotta get through security before its Federal...
You came up with the Federal Statute...
My question is this... What is considered "attempting to get on an aircraft" legally?
Now a layman might say, that if you are buying a ticket and processing through security, that you are attempting to board an aircraft.
But legally, it might mean exactly what it does literally. Attempting to board an aircraft. Physically walking down the causeway and entering the hatch of an airplane.
I don't know what the legal definition is. But before you go off on us, you better be damn sure you understand ALL the legal implications and definitions. If I remember correctly, you are, or have been a lawyer. If so, you know that these things are important.
Actually I don't have to damn sure of anything until and unless I am getting paid to be damn sure. I am only speculating here, and providing information. Information that is general because I am not privy to the complete facts. Tell you what, YOU try to go through airport security, get arrested, then call me. Then we can work out a retainer. Then perhaps I can be more specific. Fair to say?
-
Your point is well taken, but I am not sure you fully have grasped what others are saying. I'm not sure I know the right or wrong of the points either way, but here is what I'm seeing from a layman's perspective...
One guy says that you gotta get through security before its Federal...
You came up with the Federal Statute...
My question is this... What is considered "attempting to get on an aircraft" legally?
Now a layman might say, that if you are buying a ticket and processing through security, that you are attempting to board an aircraft.
But legally, it might mean exactly what it does literally. Attempting to board an aircraft. Physically walking down the causeway and entering the hatch of an airplane.
I don't know what the legal definition is. But before you go off on us, you better be damn sure you understand ALL the legal implications and definitions. If I remember correctly, you are, or have been a lawyer. If so, you know that these things are important.
Actually I don't have to damn sure of anything until and unless I am getting paid to be damn sure. I am only speculating here, and providing information. Information that is general because I am not privy to the complete facts. Tell you what, YOU try to go through airport security, get arrested, then call me. Then we can work out a retainer. Then perhaps I can be more specific. Fair to say?
Actually I don't have to damn sure of anything until and unless I am getting paid to be damn sure. I am only speculating here, and providing information. Information that is general because I am not privy to the complete facts. Tell you what, YOU try to go through airport security, get arrested, then call me. Then we can work out a retainer. Then perhaps I can be more specific. Fair to say?
Now you are just being a dick.
-
There absolutely is something wrong with carrying a gun in an improper manner and in improper places. And his cavalier attitude led to an illegal action.....so it is natural to ask....Why do you feel the need to carry a gun when he carried it illegally and cavalierly. Why shouldn't that question be asked? They can ask: why do you prefer vanilla over chocolate? or do you prefer briefs or boxers? are you a Republican or a Democrat? do you believe in capital punishment? etc. etc. He is a public person and can be asked those questions, and they are fully fair.
Why do i as a "gun toter" have to explain why I feel a need to carry a firearm. Why do you feel the need to speak freely about how you feel about guns. Its just your basic rights. That one is right next to the 2nd. amendment. You know the "rights" that we have. So xxxxYouPussy for expressing yourself. edit*And, if he is asked the question: Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? ...and his answer is "for self protection because other Professional Athletes have been assaulted/killed/carjacked....I don't see how that could not be a satisfactory answer. Why do you feel he should be so defensive about it? If his answer is "because I want to prove what a man I am and that I want to roll with my homeys who are all also packing" well, that is an answer I think the public would have a right to know. So, I don't think these gun toters should hide behind a bare statement that "I got a right to carry one".
I got a right to say "F**K you, pussy", but if I say that to him, I think I should justify why I did. Rights can be exercised, but they are not necessarily a shield for a lack of responsibility.
But seriously My question would be why is the law in place that he is guilty of. I can't pick and choose where I might need to protect my family so in my I can't pick and choose where I carry my gun. And since I have a right to bear arms, and not "a right to bear arms after you pay a bunch of money for a class and then pay more for an application fee, and you can't carry it here and here and here.(Thats so the mass murderers will no where to attack people.) You shouldn't be able to tell me where I can and cannot take it.
I will finish with this
Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them they go away.
Why do i as a "gun toter" have to explain why I feel a need to carry a firearm. Why do you feel the need to speak freely about how you feel about guns. Its just your basic rights. That one is right next to the 2nd. amendment. You know the "rights" that we have. So xxxxYouPussy for expressing yourself. edit*
But seriously My question would be why is the law in place that he is guilty of. I can't pick and choose where I might need to protect my family so in my I can't pick and choose where I carry my gun. And since I have a right to bear arms, and not "a right to bear arms after you pay a bunch of money for a class and then pay more for an application fee, and you can't carry it here and here and here.(Thats so the mass murderers will no where to attack people.) You shouldn't be able to tell me where I can and cannot take it.
I will finish with this
Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them they go away.
No one says you HAVE to explain it. (hell, I doubt seriously that you or he or anyone can truthfully explain it to yourself) But I, or the media to a public figure are damn well free to ask you to explain it. If you don't want to, you don't have to....unless perhaps you are under arrest. (But then, don't forget about your right to remain silent.....sometimes guys like you like to spew about what rights you have, but don't want to recognize that others have equal, if not more compelling rights that they choose to exercise).
Now, if you would like to get into a Constitutional law discussion about how the government may indeed regulate certain of your rights, or how property owners, public and private, can indeed tell you what you can and cannot bring onto their property, we can do that. However, I may be more inclined to direct you to the literature on the subject. We have this thing called a Supreme Court that has had a lot to say on the subject. You can research their decisions on the matter)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login