arma virumque cano (et alia)
When he volunteered that he had an antique flintlock pistol with him, he was promptly arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a handgun, which carries up to a ten-year prison sentence.I also object to the way ammoland portrayed the events. He wasn't arrested promptly. They came to his house with a team of squad cars on another day- which is even worse. This was deliberate and premeditated asshatery all the way through the department's chain of command.
I agree that a guy like that should not be arrested, but I object to blaming the laws. Only he was responsible for knowing them and either obeying or not.
How can you say that the guy should not be arrested for this and then, in the next breath, say that the law that demands his arrest isn't a bad law?
Why have the law allow for the arrest then? As you can see, there are always people who don't apply discretion and say "the law is the law". If this is about distortion, in what situation would you want someone arrested and charged with a felony for transporting a flintlock?If he shouldn't be arrested, than don't write the law that way. It's not a difficult concept.
"in the next breath, say that the law that demands his arrest isn't a bad law"Where did I say that? I said "I object to blaming the laws."
You say that you don't support blaming this law. If you don't find it blameworthy, then is it incorrect to say that you don't think it is a bad law?Or is it somehow a bad law but not to blame for the arrest under it?
Ok, don't blame the law. Blame the lawmakers.
I believe that a prohibition on black-powder and antique weapons is fair. In a case like this he shouldn't be lumped in with all the other "illegal possession" guys. But, above all, people have to be responsible for their decisions to ignore or violate laws they don't agree with.
You keep assuming that this guy knew about that law and willfully violated it rather than ran afoul of it out of ignorance.Still, even if we give you that this guy violated the law intentionally, by your logic, we shouldn't blame anti-miscegenation laws and other Jim Crow laws for the imprisonment of people who chose to break them, and their willful violation of these laws should be our number one focus.
Mike has no problem "blaming the law" as long as it is SYG or Castle Doctrine.Wow, did I just catch Mike being inconsistent? That never happens!
That's a ridiculous comparison. Gun owners need to be aware of the laws. They can't cry ignorance.
Mike,I wasn't arguing about the concept of people needing to be aware of the law. Instead, I was pointing out that your characterization of this as an intentional violation was based on an assumption.As for the comparison, I just chose a law we would both agree is unconstitutional for ease of comparison, not of what was prohibited, but of the legal theory you propose--namely, not blaming the law for the imprisonment of people who willfully violated it.
"Wow, did I just catch Mike being inconsistent? I don't think so, TS. SJ, I didn't say the guy intentionally violated the law. What I said is he's responsible for his actions.
What I said is he's responsible for his actions.Lately, I thought you've been saying that he broke no firearms laws.
"SJ, I didn't say the guy intentionally violated the law."Oh really? Let's have a look at your other comments just from this post:"have to be responsible for their decisions to ignore or violate laws""the only people to blame are the ones who choose to ignore laws they don't feel like obeying.""I think they knew damn well that having the gun was against the law, a law they chose to disregard"If you're going to lie it helps to not provide the contrary evidence in the same thread.
Oh really? Let's have a look at your other comments just from this post:"have to be responsible for their decisions to ignore or violate laws" YES"the only people to blame are the ones who choose to ignore laws they don't feel like obeying." NO"I think they knew damn well that having the gun was against the law, a law they chose to disregard" NOThat makes you a flagrant liar - 2 out of 3 quotes DID NOT come from this post.
That makes it sound like they've halted all targeting of hardened criminals in order to persecute honest gun owners. Of course that's wrong on two counts, first they are very much targeting criminals and two, the "honest gun owners" they are persecuting are all guilty of something [whether that "something" is in the slightest degree morally wrong, or not].So if they do sometimes bring some truly bad actors to justice, they're to be given a pass for also persecuting people who have done no harm, and meant no harm?Going back to the first point, let's consider the total number of arrests and prosecutions and divide that number into 3. That should put the situation in some kind of perspective.You lost me--what is the significance of the third of the total number of arrests and prosecutions?
Read it again, Kurt. It's not a third.Arresting people who have done no harm happens often - or should I say all the time, when people choose to disregard the laws they don't feel like obeying.
Read it again, Kurt. It's not a third.Yeah--sorry. I did misread that. I still don't know what you're talking about, though.
" I still don't know what you're talking about, though."Liar.
Liar.What possible motive would I have for falsely claiming to not understand the supposed significance of the result obtained by performing the calculation of 3/(total number of arrests and prosecutions)?
Of course that's wrong on two counts, first they are very much targeting criminals and two, the "honest gun owners" they are persecuting are all guilty of something." But you see Mike, what we have here is a perfect comparison of "common sense" as interpreted by gun control advocates, and actual real world gun control. And it all took place in a 24 hour period. The real world common sense was ablely demonstrated by the Deputy who looked at the situation and the firearm itself and saw no real crime. The other part of the demonstration occurred the very next day when the Sheriff didn't back up his Deputy's decision and made a felony arrest. I wonder if the Deputy was disciplined for his exercise in common sense. They took him in and treated him like any other "hardened criminal" and is charged with felony which carries a five to ten year mandatory sentence which somehow even threatens his pension. The Shanneen Allen case in itself was a wonderful illustration of blind obedience to the law with no consideration to the interests of justice. And just when everyone thought something might be learned from that event, they actually took to the next level up by arresting this guy with an antique dating back to the time of the founding fathers. With Ms. Allen, most of the citizens could avoid identifying with her plight with the simple expedient of the knowledge that she wasn't from Jersey. However, with the arrest of a retired New Jersey teacher for possession of a gun that gun control advocates love to claim is the only type of firearm protected by the Constitution, they are now forced to entertain the possibility that they aren't as safe from suffering a similar fate as they thought. Makes you wonder what they'll do for an encore.....
What do you mean, "somehow even threatens his pension?"ss, the only people to blame are the ones who choose to ignore laws they don't feel like obeying.
I don't think he "chose to ignore the law". I'm pretty sure he relied on common sense instead of actually checking the legality of owning a flintlock in NJ (big mistake to assume NJ gun laws are reasonable). "Yes officer, I consent to a search- and you'll find a nice little felony for your quota in the glove box."Perhaps he did know and is just setting up a court challenge to restore rights to his fellow citizens?
ss, the only people to blame are the ones who choose to ignore laws they don't feel like obeying.Wrong. The only people to be blamed are the evil sacks of filth who criminalize inherently harmless behavior, those who enforce the sick, heinous laws, and anyone who defends either of the above.
Sorry for the delay in replying Mike, long day. I would wonder how that's going to work. I guess we'll have to hopefully learn how he acquired it. Did you know that this pistol in the article doesn't even need to be registered in DC? Its also interesting to note that people have already donated over $20,000 towards his defense fund so far, while the poor beleaguered Pennsylvania cities have at best been able to raise about $14,000. Most states don't even consider such a piece to be a firearm at all, and Mr. Guilder doesn't seem to be putting himself out there as a collector of firearms, but rather a history buff and collector of artifacts from the 1700's.
TS, Shaneen Allen did basically the same thing. AFTER having an uninvided encounter with the cops, she volunteered the fact that she had a gun. In both cases, I think they knew damn well that having the gun was against the law, a law they chose to disregard, and took a calculated chance to minimize the damage. In both cases it didn't work.
MikeB: " I think they knew damn well that having the gun was against the law, a law they chose to disregard, and took a calculated chance to minimize the damage. In both cases it didn't work."Well, they must have been pretty bad at calculating, because they could have just said "I do not consent to a search" if they knew they were possessing an item (a constitutionally protect item, that is) illegally.
I think it was a pretty good calculation, especially for the old white guy. Cops like it when people are honest and tell the truth. They hate it when they lie and try to get over.
No. He chose poorly. He could have just said "I do not consent to a search" and taken the ticket if he knew that he was guilty of felony possession of a constitutionally protected item.
Shitty calculation. If, as TS said, they declined any searches and refrained from saying anything about guns, one way or the other, then the Only way the cops could have found out about these guns would have been if they somehow got probable cause to search the vehicles, which doesn't seem likely, or if they unconstitutionally searched the vehicles and found the guns, which might have resulted in the search being thrown out.
And if they are intimidating him into searching his car on a routine traffic stop and threatening to bring out the dogs, I don't think he's been getting special "old white guy" treatment.