I came upon this and found it to be quite ironic.
Missouri state senator Jamilah Nasheed is a supporter of harsh gun control laws… for other people.
She routinely carries a concealed weapon, even while possibly under the influence.
Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheed had a gun in her possession at the time she was arrested Monday night outside the Ferguson Police Department, according to Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson.
Nasheed declined comment about the having the weapon, but did tell News 4 she has a concealed carry permit. A Ferguson police officer said Nasheed was carrying a fully-loaded 9 mm handgun and additional rounds.
Sources also told News 4 Ferguson police requested St. Ann to administer a breathalyzer test at the time of her arrest because she “smelled strongly of intoxicants,” but Nasheed refused to do so. Nasheed said Tuesday she was not intoxicated at the time.
Nasheed was the co-sponsor of last years Missouri Senate Bill 124, which would have required gun owners with children in Missouri schools to notify the schools that they owned firearms, and threatened to filibuster any legislation supported by the National Rifle Association.
I suspect that law enforcement would be well within their rights to revoke Nasheed’s permit for refusing to take the breathalyzer while carrying.
Interestingly, the major media outlets to include Foxnews seem to be not mentioning it so far.
Yes, indeed, she should not only lose her permit to carry, but also her right to own.
Yes, indeed, she should not only lose her permit to carry, but also her right to own.
ReplyDeleteBut not "not only lose her [license to drive], but also her right to own" a car?
Tell me, Mikeb, when someone is driving drunk, with a licensed handgun holstered on his/her hip, with what is he/she more likely to cause harm--the gun, or the car?
ss pointed out to me that she was not arrested for drunk driving like I had first thought.
DeleteLike Bill Maher she owns a gun, but speaks against guns. Of course both being public figures their chance of being attacked are higher than the average Joe. A difference between irrational fear and real.
ReplyDelete"Of course both being public figures their chance of being attacked are higher than the average Joe. A difference between irrational fear and real."
DeleteHow does that exactly work in the real world Anon? What might be the ratio of public figures being victims of violent crime compared to the "average joe"? Or perhaps you could show some public figures who have used a firearm to defend themselves? I'll give you a hint, there were some who did in Pennsylvania quite recently.
Keep in mind though, if that were to happen in a noticeable way, the "average joes" might decide its a good idea for them too.
You don't think public figures like Obama get more death threats than the average Joe? The answer is so obvious, I won't bother to track down the figures, they are a matter of public record. Maher has had many death threats, which is why he won't get rid of his gun, yet, speaks against the 2A. His position seems hypocritical, but he lives with real death threats unlike the average gun loon who feels it necessary to carry a gun everywhere including a bathroom. The difference is real fear compared to imaginary fear.
DeleteThe difference you are talking about is threats of attacks vs. actual attacks, and your average Joe is more likely to be a real victim of violent crime and murder than celebrities- largely because celebrities live in really good neighborhoods more isolated from crime.
DeleteHere's a study on crimes relating to wealth:
http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/hcx/Muroi-Baumann_Crime.pdf
"You don't think public figures like Obama get more death threats than the average Joe?"
DeleteWe aren't talking about public figures like the President Anon. This public figure went to a protest with the intention of getting arrested. For whatever reason, she seems to have decided to have a few drinks while carrying her pistol.
Planning on misbehaving to the point where you get arrested and introducing a gun into the event is garunteed to increase the chances of a bad outcome. Especially when she's protesting in a place where they are asserting the police are too quick to use deadly force. Not very good decision making in my opinion.
Again Anon, show me some examples of public figures having to defend themselves with a firearm. Keep in mind that as a rule, in may issue permit states, living in a high crime area, or random threats aren't an adequate justification to get a carry permit.
Or perhaps you'll suggest that the presence of a weapon was a factor in preventing an attack? People know Maher is armed, so people don't attack him.
You always seem to bounce back and forth between lamenting the high levels of gun violence in this country and use it as a justification to pass ever more restrictive laws preventing "regular joes" from being able to defend themselves.
Or when the "regular joes" decide to keep a gun for self defense, you bring up the decreases in crime and contend that these people who end up being the vast majority of actual violent crime are paranoid and their fear which is based on real live crime is imaginary.
"This public figure went to a protest with the intention of getting arrested."
DeleteIs that true? I thought she was just another so-called lawful gun owner who thought she could disobey inconvenient laws.
"State Sen. Jamilah Nasheed walked out of jail Tuesday and told a gathering of reporters that her arrest Monday evening in Ferguson was a “symbolic” act to promote peaceful protest."
Delete“I wanted to send a message to all the protesters that we have a long road ahead of us these next three weeks,” Nasheed said, apparently referring to estimates for when the St. Louis County Grand Jury might return a finding in the shooting death Aug. 9 of Michael Brown, 18, by a Ferguson police officer. “It's OK to protest, it's OK to exercise your First Amendment rights, it's OK to go to jail for a cause, but it's not OK to destroy communities."
"Some protesters had grumbled about Nasheed showing up Monday night and being arrested in short order. They said that they have been protesting nightly at the station and avoiding arrest by following police instructions.
“Everyone is going to criticize, but I had a message to deliver,” Nasheed said of the criticism."
"Nasheed said she doesn't know why officers asked to give her the breath test and said she was not intoxicated.
She called the release of information about her gun and the breath test request "character assassination" and said she doesn't trust Ferguson police."
I especially like the last part about the "character assassination".
SS you are so full of it.
DeleteFor the thousandth time, I'm am not for "preventing "regular joes" from being able to defend themselves." Nor do I support gun bans, or qualified citizens having, buying and using guns. That's another one of your lies about me. Why do you have to lie to make a point?
Obama has had 100's of death threats against him. How many death threats does the average Joe get? Take your false comparison and put it where the Sun don't shine.
She's not a public figure? She's an elected rep. just like the one who got shot (Giffords).
It's funny hearing a gun carrying fanatic like you now claim she should not have had her gun on her, wherever she was. You are the hypocrite on this one.
"It's funny hearing a gun carrying fanatic like you now claim she should not have had her gun on her, wherever she was. You are the hypocrite on this one."
DeleteAgain Anon, if you're planning on getting arrested, carrying after apparently having a few drinks when its illegal to carry while intoxicated is sort of poor planning. If this were a gun rights advocate you'd be all over their decision making.
Then we can throw in the administrative hoops she might have to go through to get her gun back. They could easily keep it for a while as evidence in any potential prosecution.
The only difference between the threats a public figure gets and the ones an average joe gets is that most of the threats a public figure get aren't serious. If it were serious, then there could be charges brought.
The threats an average joe gets are much more real and immediate. And as I said, much more numerous.
Again SS you are full of it.
DeleteCan you prove the threats an Obama gets aren't serious? So these White House fence jumpers we can ignore because according to you they are not serious.
Please prove that her intentions were to get arrested.
Please prove that the average Joe's threats are much more numerous. The fact's show Obama gets 100's of death threats.
"Can you prove the threats an Obama gets aren't serious? So these White House fence jumpers we can ignore because according to you they are not serious."
DeleteAgain, the serious ones are those either attempted, as evidenced by the recent intrusions into the White House and those who are convicted of threatening the President. I'm seeing three convictions here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States
Some of the fence jumpers cant be ignored because at least one entered the grounds with a weapon.
"Please prove that her intentions were to get arrested."
Please refer to my reply to Mike at 3:06 PM. Or we could look here where she appears to emulate Thoreau by refusing an alternative to being jailed and ended up being bailed out by someone else.
"Attorney Eric Vickers said late Monday that he represents Nasheed and that she had refused bond. He also seemed to confirm that her arrest was intentional.
"She wants to present this as an alternative to any sort of violent action," Vickers said, referring to the potential for violence if a grand jury fails to indict the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown in August. "
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/state-sen-nasheed-arrested-at-protest-in-ferguson/article_bc0bcccc-11b0-5a51-9e73-7ad028efd35a.html
"Please prove that the average Joe's threats are much more numerous."
One has but to look here at the number of threats to Average Joes,
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls
This shows that according to most recent figures, there were over 1.2 million actual documented threats of violence nationwide. You just have to subtract the threats of public officials.
"The fact's show Obama gets 100's of death threats."
You're wrong on this one too. The threats likely number in the thousands, though the majority of them aren't serious enough to be chargeable.
"While some commentators have suggested the unusually high amount of death threats surrounding Obama are at least partially tied to the use of racist imagery and words used by some of Obama's critics to describe the president,[2] in 2009 the Secret Service stated that the volume of threats against Obama was "comparable to that under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_threats_against_Barack_Obama
Do the math Anon.
As usual you have proved nothing, except what I said is true, thanks.
Delete