• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Women fined for taking guns into federal building

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
I think the fines are fitting punishment.
n725075089_288918_2774.jpg


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?
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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.
 

buckfynn

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
29
Location
Idaho
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

ecocks

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
1,040
Location
USA
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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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.
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
Two different individuals...and they both "forgot" their were carrying handguns. :uhoh:

Nothing but a flimsy excuse.
 

ecocks

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
1,040
Location
USA
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.
 

ecocks

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
1,040
Location
USA
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.
 

Red Dawg

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
399
Location
Eastern VA, with too many people
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..
 
Top