Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Women fined for taking guns into federal building

  1. #1
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476

    Women fined for taking guns into federal building

    Two Idaho women who each say they forgot they had handguns in their purses while entering the James A. McClure Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Boise have received fines.

    http://www.idahopress.com/news/state...1ce3c4213.html

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    You know, I actually am having trouble being sympathetic to people who can forget they have a firearm in their purse.

    I think the fines are fitting punishment. No jail time is deserved for stuff like this.

    That said, I do not agree that it should be illegal to carry in a federal courthouse, but this is not exactly a modern or secret law here, especially since they submitted to having their purses go through the scanner, after no doubt passing numerous signs.

    Seriously, did they really "forget" they had guns? At what point during an assault/rape/murder would they remember?
    Last edited by MAC702; 02-20-2012 at 12:45 AM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    You know, I actually am having trouble being sympathetic to people who can forget they have a firearm in their purse.
    I'm not having trouble being sympathetic. I've come close to forgetting I was carrying and heading to a prohibited place.

    I do not spend all day saying to myself "I am carrying a gun" and fixing attention on it just to avoid trouble on those rare times I need to visit a prohibited place.

    Also, I think it absurd that metal detectors are placed to prevent weapons, but when they work, innocent forgetters are fined. The government can just as easily call aside any forgetters and get them to put the gun in a locker. Or, the detectors can be put outside the building, or the building can be redesignated such that the "building" starts just beyond the metal detectors (if government can designate pizza sauce as a vegetable, it can designate the lobby as "not the building" for the purposes of metal detectors and gun laws.)

    Mens rea (guilty mind) and prior restraint figure heavily in any proper analysis of this subject. So what if an innocent forgetter carries into a federal building? They're not going to shoot up the place. They haven't shot the place up.

    Are the detectors to prevent weapons, or to penalize innocents? I mean really. How many genuine bad actors have been caught in a metal detector?
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-20-2012 at 01:01 AM.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I can agree with that. While I still have some trouble being sympathetic, you are correct that there is no reason why accommodations aren't made. After all, carrying firearms SHOULD be more commonplace to the point that there is an easy system in place for dealing with these situations.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I think that we should be able to bring our guns onto gov't property, what they afraid of us? That tells me they are not treating me too well.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post

    I think the fines are fitting punishment.


    How about NO punishment. If the check point did it's job and they never got into the secure area why are they being punished at all?
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I've meditated on this and agree that I am wrong on the punishment. I was in such shock that responsibly armed citizens can "forget" they have a gun in their purse that I focused on the wrong thing.

    I'm guessing now (hoping, maybe) that "forgetting" was just their excuse to try to get away with it, and perhaps they really did think it was okay at first to have it.

    A good story for the benefits of OC.

    But to play devil's advocate (literally), the front doors that were already passed were the start of the unarmed victim zone. The scanners were the enforcement (possibly unConstitutional illegal search though) of it. IF (a big if) such scanners are appropriate, then violators should be the ones paying for them.
    Last edited by MAC702; 02-20-2012 at 10:51 AM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    As they could have been jailed, the fines seem to be substantial justice. I'm guessing the $500 fine was because she didn't have a CCW as the $300 was stated that she did. While I agree even more leniency could have been shown, the outcome wasn't egregious.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    You have all been brainwashed. Tell me a reason why we should not be able to bring our guns into a govt bldg?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    You know, I actually am having trouble being sympathetic to people who can forget they have a firearm in their purse.

    I think the fines are fitting punishment. No jail time is deserved for stuff like this.

    That said, I do not agree that it should be illegal to carry in a federal courthouse, but this is not exactly a modern or secret law here, especially since they submitted to having their purses go through the scanner, after no doubt passing numerous signs.

    Seriously, did they really "forget" they had guns? At what point during an assault/rape/murder would they remember?
    I agree with what you are saying. The law is a law even though I disagree with it from a moral and constitutional perspective. But I still have a problem not being able to carry a firearm in a US federal building in which the same government grants my 2A right to bear arms.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    As they could have been jailed, the fines seem to be substantial justice. I'm guessing the $500 fine was because she didn't have a CCW as the $300 was stated that she did. While I agree even more leniency could have been shown, the outcome wasn't egregious.
    I agree the outcome wasn't egregious.

    It was the whole rationale for charging here in the first place, and the circumstances set up by government that made it possible. Those were egregious.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    I don't. There is a difference in forgetting that you're carrying on your back belt and forgetting that it's in a handbag which you leave laying around at work, in restaurants, on the counter of the restroom, etc. Hopefully, the fines will help them remember that their handbag has a firearm in it. No sympathy from me and they're lucky they get to keep their permits. If I was the Sheriff, I'd ponder a bit about whether they had demonstrated safe handling of their weapons.

    That said, it''s a shame that citizens are being disarmed and ridiculous that they are not provided with safe storage locations if they are disarmed.
    Last edited by ecocks; 02-21-2012 at 10:14 PM.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by ecocks View Post
    I don't. There is a difference in forgetting that you're carrying on your back belt and forgetting that it's in a handbag which you leave laying around at work, in restaurants, on the counter of the restroom, etc. Hopefully, the fines will help them remember that their handbag has a firearm in it. No sympathy from me and they're lucky they get to keep their permits. If I was the Sheriff, I'd ponder a bit about whether they had demonstrated safe handling of their weapons.
    Let's assume for the sake of argument that these particular women were the kind that left the purse laying around at work, in restaurants, and restroom counters. Do you suppose that public humiliation, court appearance, and fines is the best way to teach them not to leave their weapons unattended? That government is the best or proper agency to drive home that lesson? Not in the realm of an NRA course instructor, or a few news clippings about kids that got shot by unattended guns, etc?

    Meaning, do you hold the statist belief that government is the proper or best agency to reinforce safe handling? The sheriff (government) the best agency to determine safe handling compared to overt threatening such as brandishing?

    You see, I think we adopt a very dangerous idea when we decide that government is best or proper. It becomes even more significant when we factor in that government has demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that it cannot be trusted with rights.

    I will just mention in passing that it might also not be a good idea to let government decide who can defend themselves, ie revoking a permit, based on something as vague as "safe handling". Dare we let sheriffs decide what is "safe handling" and what isn't? Dare we let them set that standard? By doing such we are necessarily letting them decide who gets to defend themselves and who doesn't.
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-22-2012 at 12:44 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I'm having a problem with them being fined at all. If they were carrying into a federal COURT ROOM, ok, Federal building..18 USA 930 3(d) gives exception for "lawful purpose" In ID, SD is a lawful purpose.

    The idea that you cannot carry just because there are federal workers is a bunch of self serving BS.

    (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
    (1)
    (2)
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

    The only place not covered by this exception is a Federal Court room and it's attendent support rooms (Jury room, judges quarters etc)
    Last edited by hermannr; 02-22-2012 at 01:42 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    I often forget that I have my phone on me and it never leaves my side. I'm constantly using it as well. Never the less, I still don't even think about it when I walk into a theater. Yet, not once have I forgotten that I had a phone when I needed a phone.

    Posted using my HTCEvo via Tapatalk

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    I often forget that I have my phone on me ... I still don't even think about it when I walk into a theater. ...
    Yeah, and I'd probably not feel bad about your $300 fine for interrupting my movie...

    But, point conceded.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  17. #17
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Two different individuals...and they both "forgot" their were carrying handguns.

    Nothing but a flimsy excuse.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    I often forget that I have my phone on me and it never leaves my side. I'm constantly using it as well. Never the less, I still don't even think about it when I walk into a theater. Yet, not once have I forgotten that I had a phone when I needed a phone.

    Posted using my HTCEvo via Tapatalk
    Exactly. I don't notice my weapon on my belt most of the day. I "forget" it is there. However, the rare times I carry in a coat pocket I am careful to keep it with me even over the back of my chair. I know where it is and am solely responsible for it's security. A woman choosing to carry in her purse is also responsible for the same. I think some are confusing not noticing it being there with forgetting it is there.

    If you are at a Jackson's when a guy comes in shooting with a shotgun and "forget" it is on your belt that's very different than not thinking about it while buying a cup of coffee. Same with walking up to a security checkpoint where you can plainly see they are scanning for weapons and prohibited items. These women tried to defend themselves as being completely unaware that the handguns were in their purses.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Let's assume for the sake of argument that these particular women were the kind that left the purse laying around at work, in restaurants, and restroom counters. Do you suppose that public humiliation, court appearance, and fines is the best way to teach them not to leave their weapons unattended? That government is the best or proper agency to drive home that lesson? Not in the realm of an NRA course instructor, or a few news clippings about kids that got shot by unattended guns, etc?

    Meaning, do you hold the statist belief that government is the proper or best agency to reinforce safe handling? The sheriff (government) the best agency to determine safe handling compared to overt threatening such as brandishing?

    You see, I think we adopt a very dangerous idea when we decide that government is best or proper. It becomes even more significant when we factor in that government has demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that it cannot be trusted with rights.

    I will just mention in passing that it might also not be a good idea to let government decide who can defend themselves, ie revoking a permit, based on something as vague as "safe handling". Dare we let sheriffs decide what is "safe handling" and what isn't? Dare we let them set that standard? By doing such we are necessarily letting them decide who gets to defend themselves and who doesn't.
    Yeah, I think, by their own admission in an attempted defense of an unlawful action, that they proved themselves completely incapable of remembering their responsibilities for deciding to arm themselves. That's completely irrelevant to the fact that one was concealed carrying without a permit.

    Regarding your second question (since your attempt to politicize this is also irrelevant to me), the Sheriff is apparently going to need to exercise their responsibility to take care of the community when someone shows that they cannot adhere to their responsibilities for their actions. Just as I would expect the Sheriff to remove firearms from the possession of a mentally incompetent person walking around pointing a shotgun all around the compass since apparently the parents who raised them or their keepers had failed in their jobs. That's stepping in not as a primary protector of "rights" but fulfilling their responsibility to keep their respective communities safe. They step in as a last resort when parenting or other roles have failed.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Red Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern VA, with too many people
    Posts
    404
    I think the way they were fined was correct, but not right. It is illeagal to have a cell phone in the court house, court rooms in some jurisdictions. It is not illeagal to have them on your person until you get to the metal detector. SO, if they found a cell phone during screening, they would turn you away. Why did they not do the same with the handgun? That is what I have an issue with. All things being equal, why are there separate "rules" and the enforcement therein..
    The Second Amendment is in place
    in case the politicians ignore the others

    A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone

  21. #21
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Mind providing a citation for a jurisdiction where such is illegal?
    Against courtroom rules maybe, but illegal? It could be that way, but I just want to see the statute.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 02-23-2012 at 02:24 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    You know, I actually am having trouble being sympathetic to people who can forget they have a firearm in their purse.

    I think the fines are fitting punishment. No jail time is deserved for stuff like this.

    That said, I do not agree that it should be illegal to carry in a federal courthouse, but this is not exactly a modern or secret law here, especially since they submitted to having their purses go through the scanner, after no doubt passing numerous signs.

    Seriously, did they really "forget" they had guns? At what point during an assault/rape/murder would they remember?
    I carry at my house and practically any time that I leave my house. As such sometimes I "forget" that I'm carrying. But by "forget" I don't mean that I don't remember that its on me, I mean that I go about my life not thinking about it. And this had led to a few times that I've had to turn around or change my plans due to not being allowed to carry on-base and forgetting to leave my gun at home.

    So I can see how they would forget. I doubt that they 100% forgot about it, but rather they forgot about it being prohibited because they don't constantly fret about it.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    ..So I can see how they would forget. I doubt that they 100% forgot about it, but rather they forgot about it being prohibited because they don't constantly fret about it.
    Actually, I still don't buy it. It's obvious that they aren't regularly going to the courthouse. Who doesn't approach a secured Federal building with a line through a metal detector and say to themselves: "Oh, what do I have on me that probably shouldn't go through there?"

    I'm especially concerned because of the off-body purse carry. If you can "forget" your sidearm is in your purse, where else are you leaving said purse lay and it not be in your constant physical contact? I can almost justify the fines as serious violations of firearms safety rules.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dawg View Post
    I think the way they were fined was correct, but not right. It is illeagal to have a cell phone in the court house, court rooms in some jurisdictions. It is not illeagal to have them on your person until you get to the metal detector. SO, if they found a cell phone during screening, they would turn you away. Why did they not do the same with the handgun? That is what I have an issue with. All things being equal, why are there separate "rules" and the enforcement therein..
    You have a fair point on the woman who had her CWL but the other woman was illegally carrying a concealed handgun according to my understanding of the story. This clearly violates state law.

    Federal buildings are illegal carry zones. I'm forced to disarm in Social Security offices, Forestry Service buildings, Department of Agriculture offices, Post Offices, etc. I don't like it or agree with it but it is the law.

    18 U.S.C. § 930 : US Code - Section 930: Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

    If you wish to contend that having your carry permit or even open carry constitutes "lawful carry" go ahead and give it a shot. I don't think you'll be the first to try it.
    Last edited by ecocks; 02-23-2012 at 03:43 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Actually, I still don't buy it. It's obvious that they aren't regularly going to the courthouse. Who doesn't approach a secured Federal building with a line through a metal detector and say to themselves: "Oh, what do I have on me that probably shouldn't go through there?"

    I'm especially concerned because of the off-body purse carry. If you can "forget" your sidearm is in your purse, where else are you leaving said purse lay and it not be in your constant physical contact? I can almost justify the fines as serious violations of firearms safety rules.
    You wouldn't take your purse through a metal detector as it would go through an x ray machine. So again, I can see how they might not think about it even though they know its there. Also I've heard of other states that require the building to provide a place to lock up your weapon if it isn't allowed.

    And what does "regularly going to the courthouse" have to do with anything? I almost never go to the post office and that is another one that I've had issues with carrying. Or babies r us as they are posted and my wife drags me there on occasion. When one is going about their life it can be easy to simply not remember to leave the gun in the car/home.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •