Two Pennsylvania truckers hauling welding supplies were charged with trying to bring concealed weapons into Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The pair had gun licenses issued in their home state, but they're not valid in Maine.
Police Chief Ed Strong said a tractor-trailer was stopped at a shipyard gate Thursday morning when a Department of Defense officer conducted a search and discovered the driver and passenger were carrying handguns.
A Maine state trooper was called to the scene and arrested Jesus Acosta-Pileta and Juan Guevera-Pompa, both 44, on charges of carrying concealed weapons without valid licenses.
Both men claimed they thought their PA concealed carry permits were valid in Maine. That doesn't sound believable to me, what do you think? Isn't it more likely they knew very well it was not permitted but, being otherwise law-abiding gun owners, they took a chance? Isn't that what many would do? If people believe it's important to carry guns for their personal safety, and many truck drivers may be right about that, wouldn't they often decide to violate some of these overly restrictive gun control laws?
Wasn't there an attempt to make this kind of thing legal? Wasn't the failure to achieve Concealed Carry Reciprosity one of the few successes for the gun control folks last year? How common do you think it is that gun owners simply ignore the laws they don't agree with? Does that make them criminals who should be treated like any other?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"How common do you think it is that gun owners simply ignore the laws they don't agree with?"
ReplyDeleteIt's more common than it should be. Especially in the places with the most restrictive gun laws. The 50% compliance rate of Canada's soon to be dead long gun registry is a good example.
Sometimes you can't work within the legislative system. Especially if it's filled with anti-gun bigots or otherwise corrupt.
As a result, the only way to bring about change is for good people to break bad laws and engage in Civil disobedience.
It's really no different than the sit-ins of the 50s and 60s. Maybe gun owners need to start organizing "carry-ins". Start giving the middle finger to the gun-free-zones and carry anyway.
Of course with that comes great risk and sacrifice. MLK Jr., Rosa Parks, and Clara Luper all had to sit in a jail cell at one time or another. MLK Jr lost his life. But it was worth it in the end. They brought about the change they desired.
Hopefully gun owners won't have to die for their rights, but I do see a time where more gun owners may have to start engaging in civil disobedience. Especially if the gun controllers get their ban on private gun sales. That may be one of the laws I ignore.
What failed was a blanket reciprocity of CCW laws between all states that issue some form of CCW.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, there is a patch work of states which honor some, but not all permits issued in other states.
AztecRed says, "It's really no different than the sit-ins of the 50s and 60s. Maybe gun owners need to start organizing "carry-ins". Start giving the middle finger to the gun-free-zones and carry anyway.
ReplyDeleteOf course with that comes great risk and sacrifice. MLK Jr., Rosa Parks, and Clara Luper all had to sit in a jail cell at one time or another. MLK Jr lost his life. But it was worth it in the end. They brought about the change they desired."
I say again it is absolutely ridiculous, it's self-aggrandizing grandiosity to compare your gun rights movement to the Civel Rights struggle of which Martin Luther King is the hero and martyr.
I know you love comparisons, but this is one of the worst.
You say it's a terrible comparison, but you don't actually say anything to discredit it.
ReplyDeleteJust saying "you're wrong" doesn't count as a substantive rebuttal. Explain yourself.
Oh, yeah, going to jail for breaking gun laws in the states where YOUR state's permits are invalid is exactly like having someone shoot you for being black and having the courage to speak the truth of equality to the power of racism.
ReplyDeleteHow about the Civil rights movement of the 1960s worked to achieve equality between the races, or at least break down barriers. The intent was to better people's standard of living.
ReplyDeleteThe "gun rights" movement leads to misery in the amount of carnage and cost to society in terms of injury, police action, the criminal justice sytem, and so on.
They can remove lettuce from the store shelves if 3 people die, yet some 30,000 are killed and lord knows how many are injured and at what cost to society because of firearms. "gun rights" is the barrier to any action to address this issue.
"The "gun rights" movement leads to misery..."
ReplyDeleteI think it only leads to misery for the anti-gun people, because they refuse to let go of their anti-gun bias and realize criminals are the cause of the carnage, not guns.
They need to realize that over 50% of the violent crime in this country is caused by 1% of the population. Specifically, gang members and those associated with illicit drug trade.
We could cut that 30,000 number in half by simply keeping that 1% locked up for a minimum of 20 years. No more plea bargains. No more getting out early for good behavior.
Mike W. said, Just saying "you're wrong" doesn't count as a substantive rebuttal. Explain yourself.
ReplyDeletePlease refer to Anonymous' comment. He answered it for me.
Aztec Red, if guns don't lead to misery, please explain Meleanie Hain to me?
ReplyDeleteAs usual Democommie pulls out a classic strawman. No wonder it's impossible to have a rational, civil discussion with him.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, Anonymous, but could you explain Melanie Hain's relevance to the topic?
ReplyDeleteAt the infamous soccer game no laws were broken and she was murdered by a police officer. (BTW, that means gun control would have been usless in preventing it)
"Aztec Red, if guns don't lead to misery, please explain Meleanie Hain to me?"
ReplyDeleteShe's dead, not miserable. Learn the difference.
Kevin, I suggest you get your facts straight, Hain's husband was a parole officer, not a policeman. He could have been barred from owning a firearm.
ReplyDeleteSO, she was shot by her husband. Her husband had a gun and encouraged Melanie to own one "for protection".
She wasn't killed with a flyswatter, mousetrap, pencil sharpener, piece of paper, cross bow, knife, brass knuckles, axe, machete, chain saw, stapler, toothbrush, or frying pan.
She was killed with a gun.
Does that make the connection for you???????
Do you think her kids will grow up to be "pro-gun" given their experience with firearms?
Wouldn't that qualify as misery since there are now three orphans?
Kevin, I have to agree with Anonymous. It's quite surprising that you referred to the husband as a "police officer."
ReplyDeleteKevin, I suggest you get your facts straight, Hain's husband was a parole officer, not a policeman.
ReplyDeleteWhich, as I explained to MikeB when the incident occurred, means he was an LEO.
Parole officers are considered a law enforcement officer under PA law.
Yep, I messed that up. It turns out, however, that Parole officers in pennsylvania are issued a Glock 26, three magazines and thirty rounds of ammunition. Failing that, a baseball bat would have worked just as well, seeing as her pistol was in another room and she was busy on the computer.
ReplyDeleteThat still doesn't make it relevant to someone carrying a firearm illegally, which was my point.