Meckler was acting illegally for having his firearm in New York for four days, because his California permit was not valid, AND because New York was his destination, he was not 'passing through' the state to a state where his permit was recognized. That is not what is covered by being in transit where you are BRIEFLY passing through a state, and where the firearm and the ammo are NOT accessible during that time. Democommie was correct; Fat White Man was correct in some respects, but not in others as to why Meckler was illegal in transporting his weapon.
My thanks for Laci in looking up this data which pertains to transporting a firearm through other jurisdictions:
18 USC § 926A
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
"One of the law's provisions was that persons traveling from one place to another cannot be incarcerated for a firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the Traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gas) and the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, in a locked container.Meckler was not passing through, and his weapon and ammo were not in a separate compartment at the time he was arrested - a separate compartment being, for example, the trunk of a vehicle.
An example of this would be that someone driving from Virginia to a competition in Vermont with a locked hard case containing an unloaded handgun and a box of ammunition in the trunk could not be prosecuted in New Jersey or New York City for illegal possession of a handgun provided that they did not stop in New Jersey or New York for an extended period of time."
What was not clear from my conversation with 'Helen' from the DA's office is if Meckler may have been trying to take his weapon and ammo in his carry on luggage into the cabin of the plane as opposed to cargo, which IS against laws and TSA policies. When I repeatedly emphasized which it was in my question, "Helen' said she thought it was the cabin but that 'it didn't matter anyway', because Meckler had broken New York law, and then discontinued the conversation somewhat abruptly - she hung up on me, despite my being polite and courteous.
So, in summation - it is legal to be in transit, but not to stop as a tourist for days at a time, with a firearm, even if your permit is not legal for a particular state so long as you are passing through, and your firearm and ammo are not readily accessible to you. Meckler may very well have been conforming to TSA rules and regs as he was boarding, but he had not been conforming to either the Firearm Owners Protection Act OR the laws of the state of New York at the time of his arrest. He does NOT appear to have been acting lawfully.
Everything I've read so far suggests he is looking at a fine rather than jail time. Meckler is an attorney, and a concealed carry permit holder; I believe it is perfectly FAIR to expect Mr. Meckler to be conversant with the FOPA of 1968 and with the laws of the state where he will be for an extended period of time as a traveler.
However, the somewhat hysterical fears of persecution of those carrying guns does NOT appear to be justified. This was not an unreasonable arrest, nor does it appear to be any form of anti-gun persecution by the Queens County DA.
I hope our MikeB readers will once more appreciate that we make efforts to be fact-based in what we post here, and that we go the extra distance to fact check what we see in the media. Thank you again, Laci, for your excellent assistance in doing precisely that.
Thus the need for the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Dog Gone, you've admitted to being an attorney. Now tell us how you're justified in having a concealed carry license.
ReplyDelete"Thus the need for the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act.
ReplyDeleteDecember 21, 2011 9:10 PM"
Right, iow, we're gonna break the law--and whine about being busted--unless you change it.
You're a fucking moron.
Before you get into it. Your cited case Revell v Port Authorities... he was also in town, overnight, with access to his gun. He took possession of it, therefore he was outside the law.
Greg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Dog Gone, you've admitted to being an attorney. Now tell us how you're justified in having a concealed carry license.
I've admitted WHAT? Please show me where you think I've done that.
I'll be happy to explain when you either provide a CREDIBLE historical source for your silly Wild Billy-bob outfit, and provide the legal cases you claim you have where challenged by Laci.
OR, where you admit that you posed in contradiction of the firearms safety rules and promoted your writing with it.
So far you've made a pattern of stating things which are factually inaccurate, including firearms safety, and self defense law.
And of course I'm also waiting for you to explain what other culture's expression of affection and friendship is involved in the movie Casablanca, re the characters Renault and Rick.
I've pretty much given up that you will acknowledge that the Normans entered Ireland as part of an Irish-sought alliance in the middle ages....
"As an attorney, and a concealed carry permit holder, I believe. . ." That statement identifies you as an attorney, unless you made a dangling modifier.
ReplyDelete1. As I told you, no one had heard of Jeff Cooper or the Four Rules during the Old West, so it would be an anachronism to show someone following those rules. I've given you my sources on the rest. You may accept them or not, but I've done my part.
2. Laci is able to take care of his concerns, and I've discussed various matters with him.
3. I've answered your question about "Casablanca" as well. I told you that I was addressing Mikeb and you butted in. I gave you as much as I'm going to say on that subject.
4. What kings do with each other is often harmful to their people, and my remarks about Ireland focus primarily on the later period when England treated Ireland as just another colony to be exploited--consider the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as illustrations of what I'm talking about.
I've answered your questions time and again. You've never given one answer to mine during the time that I've been here.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteBut in that case, Revell had no intention of going to New York. What was he supposed to do--leave his gun unattended in the airport while he was stuck in the city? Then you'd accuse him of negligence. What you're showing here is that you just don't want anyone carrying a gun, period. We knew that.
Greg - as we have previously identified him, MECKLER is an attorney who has a concealed carry permit,and who it is fair to expect to be conversant with the FOPA of 1968 and the laws of NY.
ReplyDeleteSheesh
"As an attorney, and a concealed carry permit holder, I believe it is perfectly FAIR to expect Mr. Meckler to be conversant with the FOPA of 1968 and with the laws of the state where he will be for an extended period of time as a traveler.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI take it that you are unaware of the grammatical error of a dangling modifier. Since the opening clause of your sentence had no subject, the first noun or pronoun to follow is the subject. I'm aware that Meckler is an attorney, but the sentence identified you as one.
Greg,from the appellate decision of Revell:
ReplyDelete"At his deposition, Revell stated that he did not check to make
sure that he could carry his firearm in Pennsylvania prior to
traveling there, but believed that it was legal for him to carry a
weapon there because the instructor for his concealed firearm
permit class did not mention that he could not do so."
In order for Revell to legally carry under FOPA (or anything else) he had to be transporting a firearm from a state where he was legal to do so TO ANOTHER STATE WHERE IT WAS LEGAL TO DO SO.
It was NOT-- note NOT NOT NOT legal for Revell to have his firearm in PA OR NJ.
He was not transiting from one legal state through somewhere else on his way to another legal state. His destination was never legal with that firearm.
Both Laci and I DID read this case. Google Revell v. port authority for the pertinent details.
Greg, once again you prove you have no fucking idea what you are talking about:
ReplyDeleteThe case in question is REVELL v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, 598 F.3d 128 (2010)
And it's obvious that you haven't actually read the case--even though it is readily findable on the internet.
Greg, the FOPA only allows for transportation of a firearm--not possession or for stops.
Additionally, Revell had access to the firearm during his travels which violates the conditions of the law.
Basically, to have FOPA protection you need to be transporting a firearm which is not readily accessible.
The problem is, Greg, you are not a lawyer--no matter how much you might think you know about the law.
Additionally, there are different skill sets and methodologies for practising law than reading poetry or literature.
You have not discussed anything with me Greg--and you continuously demonstrate you have no idea of how to practise law.
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
Greg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteDemocommie,
But in that case, Revell had no intention of going to New York. What was he supposed to do--leave his gun unattended in the airport while he was stuck in the city? Then you'd accuse him of negligence. What you're showing here is that you just don't want anyone carrying a gun, period. We knew that.
It is simple Greg; if you aren't sure you can legally carry somewhere - DON'T.
dog gone said...
ReplyDeleteRevell failed to do this - from my original post right here above the comments:
from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm
Neither NJ, nor NY, met the standard of 'where he may lawfully possess and carry such a firearm.
He was wrong to leave with the firearm in the first place without being sure it was legal at his destination, in this case PA. There are provisions for passing through, but they do not encompass every possible occurrence. The Appellate court seems to have handed Revell his backside.
Revell acted illegally; Meckler acted even more so, as he had no mitigating circumstances; he just straight up violated NY law.
It is simple Greg; if you aren't sure you can legally carry somewhere - DON'T.
ReplyDeleteGood advise, but not one that gun loons want to hear.
The problem is that there are so many traps for the unwary person who is carrying a firearm.
If you know the law, carrying is more of a hassle than it is worth. Unless you are a valid LEO, but even they have places where they are restricted from carrying. Less than a private citizen, but they can still be prohibited from carrying in certain places and under certain conditions.
GC wrote1. As I told you, no one had heard of Jeff Cooper or the Four Rules during the Old West, so it would be an anachronism to show someone following those rules.
ReplyDeleteNo one had heard of Jeff Cooper; that doesn't mean that no one knew how to handle a firearm safely or that they did anything as stupid as belt carry.
There were plenty of manuals and books before Cooper came along, just as there are other people who advocate gun safety rules using three rather than four.
I'm waiting for you to show me that there was no COMPARABLE knowledge of firearm safety, and that anything you show in that photo was accepted practice (hint - it wasn't).
Or do you think Jeff Cooper invented the printing press, and the wheel and discovered fire too? Did you think the Americas didn't exist until Columbus came over the horizon as well?
You are clearly an ignorant person when it comes to firearms of the era and what was known at the time. I suggest you find sources that show there was no knowledge in writing of safe firearm practices AND that there was belt carry, or admit you're talking out of your ass again. More proof you're all about gun fantasy, not gun facts.
I've given you my sources on the rest. You may accept them or not, but I've done my part.
Laci is able to take care of his concerns, and I've discussed various matters with him.
That was not my understanding as of this afternoon; in fact reading that he was surprised to see those words; it was news to him.
I've answered your question about "Casablanca" as well. I told you that I was addressing Mikeb and you butted in. I gave you as much as I'm going to say on that subject.
Uh, NO. That was something Mike addressed to anyone, and I addressed MikeB and the topic. Here's a news flash, as an admin here, I can interject whenever I like. YOU THEN ADDRESSED MY comment on Renault and Rick in the movie. If you want a private conversation, take it to email. You made an ignorant comment and then you failed to back it up with anything whatsoever that shows it was a valid comment ABOUT THE MOVIE.
DogGone,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to research this. As I had said, Meckler was not arrested for violating TSA or other Federal laws but was arrested for violating a state ownership law when he complied with TSA procedures.
At the time of our original exchange, I did not know that he had been in the state for 4 days (when Demo mentioned it later in the discussion). But now that I read your's and Laci's posting of the FOPA law, now I must wonder, where in FOPA does it say you are only allowed to stop only for gas? (other than Wiki) Where does it say that 4 days are too long? What if you are travelling by bicycle or other mode of transportation that would take longer than a day to pass through?
"Thus the need for the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act."
ReplyDeleteIf HR822 would have been in effect here, it would indeed have protected Meckler, but it would not protect someone that does not have a Concealed Handgun License from their home state.
FWM< It doesn't say you can stop for food or fuel, but it makes sense for short necessary stops.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I remember a case from WDC (it's reported) where tourist made the mistake of asking the Capitol Police where the best place to park was since he was transporting firearms.
I'd need to research the case law, but my impression is that one has to (1) be in transit and (2) not have ready access to the firearm.
Being a tourist would be an unecessary delay.
The big question is overnighting.
Of course, in the example Pennsylvania would be a short detour for an overnight if one is on the way from Florida (or Virginia) to Vermont.
This:
ReplyDelete"A provision of the federal law known as the Firearms Owners` Protection Act, or FOPA, protects those who are transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which would otherwise prohibit passage.
Under FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Ammunition that is either locked out of reach in the trunk or in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console is also covered.
Travelers should be aware that some state and local governments treat this federal provision as an "affirmative defense" that may only be raised after an arrest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has also recently held that FOPA`s protections only apply while the firearm is not readily accessible to the traveler, and that a firearm is readily accessible during a hotel stay.
While this decision is only binding in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the U.S. Virgin Islands, all travelers in areas with restrictive laws would be well advised to have copies of any applicable firearm licenses or permits, as well as copies or printouts from the relevant jurisdictions` official publications or websites documenting pertinent provisions of law (including FOPA itself) or reciprocity information. In the event of an unexpected or extended delay, travelers should make every effort not to handle any luggage containing firearms unnecessarily and to secure it in a location where they do not have ready access to it."
and this:
"Special Advisory for New York and New Jersey Airports: Despite federal law that protects travelers, authorities at JFK, La Guardia, Newark and Albany airports have been known to enforce state and local firearms laws against airline travelers who are merely passing through the jurisdiction. In some cases, even persons traveling in full compliance with federal law have been arrested or threatened with arrest. As noted above in the section entitled "Federal Law on the Transportation of Firearms," FOPA`s protections have been substantially narrowed by court decisions, and persons traveling with firearms may want to avoid New York and New Jersey or make arrangements to ship their firearms to their destination, rather than bringing them through these jurisdictions."
are from here (http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/federal/read.aspx?id=59)
I have had some difficulty in locating the original text of the FOPA but the NRA/ILA seems to indicate that they take the "transit" provision to mean the same thing as Meckler and Revell experienced.
Not the one I had in mind, but...
ReplyDeleteBieder v. United States, (D.C. App. 1995)
While the family was travelling to and from Virginia, Bieder's
handgun was unloaded, and both the weapon and an ammunition clip
were in the locked trunk of his car. Upon his arrival at the
Capitol parking area, however, Bieder removed the pistol from the
trunk, loaded his ammunition clip into the pistol, and placed the
weapon, which now had a round in the chamber, into a pouch which
he wore a round his waist...
Bieder then walked to the Capitol. Upon entering the
building, and as he was about to pass through a metal detector, he
handed his New York permit and the pouch to a Capitol Police
officer. Bieder explained that the pouch contained a handgun and
that he had a New York permit to carry the weapon. In response to
a question by the officer, Bieder acknowledged that he did not have
a District of Columbia license. After consulting with one of his
superiors, the officer placed Bieder under arrest.
The result of the appeal can be found here:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1208380.html
"But in that case, Revell had no intention of going to New York. What was he supposed to do--leave his gun unattended in the airport while he was stuck in the city? Then you'd accuse him of negligence. What you're showing here is that you just don't want anyone carrying a gun, period. We knew that."
ReplyDeleteActually, despite FatWhiteMan and MAholewitthegunz assertion that there was no way for Revell to notify the authorities of his predicament (they are 100% wrong) Revell could have called the NJ State Police and explained the situation. They might then have advised the Airport's baggage claims dept. to impound the bag--something they are quite capable of doing--or perhaps removed it to the nearest NJ State Police facility--there's probably one at the airport in Newark and return it to the airport when Revell arrived for his flight. It ain't rocket science.
Most cops that I've known are not anti-gun. They are for sure anti-assholes with gunz. When they're dealing with an asshole it always gets "interesting".
Imagine the suffering poor Helen endured with your whiny phone calls. Poor woman.
ReplyDeleteActually, despite FatWhiteMan and MAholewitthegunz assertion that there was no way for Revell to notify the authorities of his predicament (they are 100% wrong) Revell could have called the NJ State Police and explained the situation.
ReplyDelete---
That's like leaving your hazard lights on when you park in a handicap spot and run in for a pack of smokes.
Dog Gone, thanks for a wonderful post. FWM seems willing to accept the 4-day stay part, but he needs to get with the "final destination" part as well.
ReplyDeleteIt seems, Mr. Meckler, the poster boy for the poor persecuted gun rights people everywhere, was nothing more than another "hidden criminal," and as such he should lose the guns.
If you are a responsible gun owner, you will know the rules.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you don't, you will avoid having a firearm in a situation where you could possibly get in trouble.
Unfortunately, gunloons aren't a responsible lot--no matter how much you protest that you are.
And if you can't live with the consequences, then don't engage in the behaviour.
If you can't do the time--don't do the crime.
No MikeB, criminals don't walk up to a Federal law enforcement officer and present their guns in the correct, proscribed manner just like hundreds of people do legally every day when a state is not prosecuting for a local law that you cannot possibly comply with.
ReplyDeleteLaci, Bieber was carrying a concealed weapon and was not transporting, unloaded in a locked container. I would be curious if you run across any FOPA cases for DC. I am also curious to know if you do run across any case law on FOPA that sets a time limit or determines what a stop can entail.
"But in that case, Revell had no intention of going to New York. What was he supposed to do--leave his gun unattended in the airport while he was stuck in the city? Then you'd accuse him of negligence. What you're showing here is that you just don't want anyone carrying a gun, period. We knew that."
ReplyDeleteWhat you suggest is the same as seeking assistance from proper authorities for resolution of a complex issue is nothing but a deliberate and flagrant violation of the law. But, then, maybe that's why guys like you say it's perfectly okay to carry your gunz onto other's property even though they have explicit rules against it. In that respect I can certainly see where you're coming from.
Laci The Dog said:
ReplyDelete"Unfortunately, gunloons aren't a responsible lot--no matter how much you protest that you are."
Careful what you say. You are implying all gun owners are not responsible, which is not an accurate statement.
It would be like me saying all lawyers are unethical, though we know that is not true.
At least once you have berated others for not being precise with the English language,so I know you would like to be held to the same standard.
"Laci The Dog said:
ReplyDelete"Unfortunately, gunloons aren't a responsible lot--no matter how much you protest that you are."
Careful what you say. You are implying all gun owners are not responsible, which is not an accurate statement.
It would be like me saying all lawyers are unethical, though we know that is not true."
Wrong.
It would be like you saying:
"all 'shysters'* are unethical."
Shysters are, by definition lying, unscrupulous fuckbags**. In that regard they are pretty much exactly like a lot of gunzloonz. There are no shysters that I'm on the fence about, where gunzloonery is concerned, there may be some subtle gradations from "teh batshit KKKrazzee to really, Really, REALLY the batshit KKKrazzee", I'm still working on a classification system.
* Probably alteration of German Scheisser, son of a bitch, bastard, from scheissen, to defecate, from Middle High German sch zen, from Old High German sk zzan; ... , from here (www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster)
** Okay, I admit that "fuckbag" was not part of the definition I found, but still...
I used the term "gunloon", which takes responsible gun owners out of the picture.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie is correct when he says:
It would be like you saying:
"all 'shysters'* are unethical."
Believe it or not, there are gun owners who support reasonable regulations on firearms ownership.
This is especially true when you are presented with proof of activities which would be easily prosecuted with adequate firearms laws.
On the other hand, the laws on the books are basically unenforcable and meant to be that way.
To say US gun control doesn't work is like saying that a car without an engine doesn't work.
It can't.
Gunloons don't want laws that really work.
And they don't do anything worth mentioning to prevent the carnage caused by firearms.
In fact, they contribute to the problem.
BTW, the case law on 18 USC 926a shows that transport is read very strictly--you are just passing through without a stop.
ReplyDeleteSightseeing removes you from the protection--especially if it is for 4 days.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteThis is why we want a rational system for carrying a firearm. That way, people who have no intention of causing mayhem won't have to navigate this thicket of varying regulations. I suspect that many of us would be willing to make a deal here: universal carry for universal background checks.
Now I would call a gun owner responsible if that person isn't using a gun to harm others. Someone who gets caught by silly laws that shouldn't be in force in the first place isn't a loon. Neither is someone who opposes a denser web of regulation.
"This is why we want a rational system for carrying a firearm. That way, people who have no intention of causing mayhem won't have to navigate this thicket of varying regulations."
ReplyDeleteAnother one of your FUCKING LIES. What you want is no accountability, regulation or restriction. That's not me reading into your idiotic attempts to justify your ridiculous assertions. It's just a result the process of keeping track of your increasingly stupid and invariably self-serving comments.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI recognize the difference between what I want and what is possible in politics. I gave a compromise that I'd accept: universal carry for universal background checks. Rather than answering that offer, you just tossed out more insults.
To everyone,
How about an article that discusses what compromises you gun control advocates would be willing to accept? What of what we want will you agree to?
MAgunowner said...
ReplyDeleteImagine the suffering poor Helen endured with your whiny phone calls. Poor woman.
Um...no. She seemed to appreciate that I was trying to get details and factual information rather than the kind of whinging misinformation that sometimes goes on from your side of the issue.
She first made it very clear that Meckler broke the law by bringing a firearm to New York without a valid permit to do so. He was not 'in transit' to somewhere else; his destination was not legal with a firearm under FOPA. He was an intentional law breaker.
She was a little annoyed at first when I was inquiring about the efforts by Meckler to comply with the TSA requirements, because she didn't see how it mattered if he was trying to take the firearm into the cabin or was the firearm going to be in cargo luggage.
When I explained my interest was in what it was that called his actions to the attention of authorities as illegal behavior, she pointed out that it was the Port Authority not the TSA who acted to put him under arrest.
My best guess however from the conversation is that the call was dropped as she tried to find out about Meckler and the cabin / cargo question, because she seemed to believe, at least at first, that he had the weapon and ammo in carry on, but then admitted that was her impression, she didn't actually know for sure.
I respect that she made the distinction between what she knew was fact, and her assumptions about the events.
New York is justifiably proud of their efforts that have made crime levels so much lower than it was when crime was at its highest point. So I can understand why the various jurisdictions don't appreciate some dufus coming in to their city thinking he's some sort of wild west 'shootist' eager to take law enforcement matters into his own hands.
"Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI recognize the difference between what I want and what is possible in politics. I gave a compromise that I'd accept: universal carry for universal background checks. Rather than answering that offer, you just tossed out more insults."
That would be because you're a clueless fucking asshole.
What you call a "compromise" is that someone should give you everything you want while you give them nothing.
As long as a clueless fuck like you is allowed CCW the world will be a more dangerous place.
I asked you on an earlier thread how much training you had done as a cop or a soldier. You chose to ignore that question. You and your fellow vigilante fantasists probably have between you a few hours of genuine training in how to deal with genuine threats. You're a poseur and a FUCKING LIAR.
"I asked you on an earlier thread how much training you had done as a cop or a soldier."
ReplyDeleteGreg probably ignored you because it's a stupid question. The second amendment does not mention military services as a requirement for private gun ownership.
MAgunner wrote:
ReplyDeleteGreg probably ignored you because it's a stupid question. The second amendment does not mention military services as a requirement for private gun ownership.
It's an excellent question, and it goes to the training someone has,as well as the experience.
Greg likes to aggressively advocate for a position, but he is poorly equipped to speak to it including on those points.
Laci has had far more combat experience with firearms. I'm better trained and better educated on firearms. Greg doesn't know (or care) about accurate understanding of what the law is regarding firearms or the historical context of safe firearm handling or the difference between myth and reality about what you can and cannot do with a firearm.
That makes him dubious, at best, as a safe gun owner or carrier.
"That makes him dubious, at best, as a safe gun owner or carrier."
ReplyDeleteand a soulmate with Greg Camp with whom he either shares the lack of actual training OR whose lack of training he deems irrelevant.
I was talking to an acquaintance last evening, someone who's been a serious hunter since he was very young. He is very pro-gun rights--up to a point.
I told him about the situation involving Mark Meckler. He said, basically, "Fuck him, he's an idiot for not making certain that he would be within the law when he brought his gun to NY.
He works PT at the local Walmart. I told him about the 72 YO shooting the knife wielder in the attack at the Walmart deli; he cringed.
Reasonable guy, owns a shitload of guns and uses them responsibly. Sees no need to carry a gun, unless he's on the range or hunting game.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteAsk your acquaintance what will happen when the Brady Bunch, et al., get done with handguns and "assault weapons." Ask him how long it will take for them to notice that a deer rifle shoots a cartridge that can punch through a police vest with no problem.
Dog Gone,
You're better trained and better educated? You've yet to prove that. Just how do you think that you're either of those, with regard to me or anyone else on my side?
"Democommie,
ReplyDeleteAsk your acquaintance what will happen when the Brady Bunch, et al., get done with handguns and "assault weapons." Ask him how long it will take for them to notice that a deer rifle shoots a cartridge that can punch through a police vest with no problem."
He laughs and shakes his head when idiots like you tell him things like that.