Gun control activist arrested at town meeting

According to First Selectman Gordon Joseloff, who was present during the incident, Margolis was charged with misdemeanor breach of peace because of her “zeal to control guns.”

He said she told police she had purchased the BB rifle and ammunition at a Walmart and intended to speak about how easily it was to buy guns and ammunition.

Joseloff also noted that any staged display she may have had in mind could have resulted in tragedy if the officer present thought she intended harm.
Mandell agreed.

“She could have gotten shot,” he said.

Click to expand...

http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?%2Fv2_5%2Fcomments%2F41782%2F

My question is why wasn't she charged with the proper charge?

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap943.htm#Sec53-206.htm

anti-gunner arrested.

Maybe she used the David Gregory clause.

the sad thing is her friend is strongly defending her actions in the comments, and trying to relate the process of buying a BB gun to the process of buying a firearm. we should all create accounts on that site and post comments in reply to everything already posted as well as our own opinions. I will be doing this later this evening after work

Rich B said:

My question is why wasn't she charged with the proper charge?

Click to expand...

She should have been charged with both, charges can always be amended but knowing our court system this nut's case will be dismissed or nolled out on the first court appearance....

motoxmann said:

we should all create accounts on that site and post comments in reply to everything already posted as well as our own opinions. I will be doing this later this evening after work

Click to expand...

so I attempted to create an account. after doing so the screen showed a message saying "once an admin approves your registration, we'll notify you"
also note that to register you NEED to enter a valid phone number (for admin purposes, not public).

way to go weston, ...

motoxmann said:

so I attempted to create an account. after doing so the screen showed a message saying "once an admin approves your registration, we'll notify you"
also note that to register you NEED to enter a valid phone number (for admin purposes, not public).

way to go weston, ...

Click to expand...

I don't have a phone .... now what?



"May I blink?"

my account was finally approved to post comments on there hehehe

Her arrainngment will be on 1/18 in Norwalk, can't wait to see this one....

http://www.jud2.ct.gov/crdockets/Ca...ding&Key=22c6f833-ec6c-4f5f-8312-1252b2208fed

Its a BB GUN. No need for an arrest ...

86 yrs old ...

Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.

I don't see her violating the statue she is being charged with ....

Sec. 29-38. Weapons in vehicles. Penalty. Exceptions. (a) Any person who knowingly has, in any vehicle owned, operated or occupied by such person, any weapon, any pistol or revolver for which a proper permit has not been issued as provided in section 29-28 or any machine gun which has not been registered as required by section 53-202, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years or both, and the presence of any such weapon, pistol or revolver, or machine gun in any vehicle shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section by the owner, operator and each occupant thereof. The word "weapon", as used in this section, means any BB. gun, any blackjack, any metal or brass knuckles, any police baton or nightstick, any dirk knife or switch knife, any knife having an automatic spring release device by which a blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches in length, any stiletto, any knife the edged portion of the blade of which is four inches or more in length, any martial arts weapon or electronic defense weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument.

God CT is soooo screwed up. 5 years for a BB gun? Heck even a real gun should not be 5 years... I assume she brought the thing via a vehicle...so just 1 of possibly many violations...

Anti-gunner as she is ... she still has the same rights as pro-gunners...

I wouldn't find her guilty if I was on a jury....go home grandma, make some hot cocoa ...

davidmcbeth said:

Its a BB GUN. No need for an arrest ...

I wouldn't find her guilty if I was on a jury....go home grandma, make some hot cocoa ...

Click to expand...

That's because the correct charge was the one Rich posted above (snipped for easy reading):

Sec. 53-206. Carrying of dangerous weapons prohibited. (a) Any person who carries upon his or her person any BB. gun, (SNIP) shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both. Whenever any person is found guilty of a violation of this section, any weapon or other instrument within the provisions of this section, found upon the body of such person, shall be forfeited to the municipality wherein such person was apprehended, notwithstanding any failure of the judgment of conviction to expressly impose such forfeiture.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to (SNIP)(5) the carrying of a BB. gun by any person taking part in a supervised event or competition of the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts of America or in any other authorized event or competition while taking part in such event or competition or while transporting such weapon to or from such event or competition; and (6) the carrying of a BB. gun by any person upon such person's own property or the property of another person provided such other person has authorized the carrying of such weapon on such property, and the transporting of such weapon to or from such property.

She clearly violated this statute, we don't know for sure she drove it there but if she did she would also be guilty of the 29-38 statute. As far as the BOP charge, people were alarmed enough to notify the officers that has been enough in the past for an arrest for BOP, conviction on the other hand.......

brk913 said:

She clearly violated this statute, we don't know for sure she drove it there but if she did she would also be guilty of the 29-38 statute. As far as the BOP charge, people were alarmed enough to notify the officers that has been enough in the past for an arrest for BOP, conviction on the other hand.......

Click to expand...

My point is : Who cares .. its a BB gun, not an atomic bomb.

I would NEVER find anyone guilty unless they actually injured someone.

The BOP charge? She did not scare anyone .. in fact she cannot scare anyone with anything .. only the people who get scared can elicit that emotion (their own emotion) .. in court a person cannot say "bob was angry" unless Bob actually says "I was angry". So its impossible for someone to know when people are scared. And an 86 yrs old woman? You scared of her with a BB gun? If you are then call your doctor because you are missing some balls.

Pro-gunners who complain about gun laws being wrong and then want people arrested for the same laws that, 10 sec ago, they complained about should re-assess their thinking. Like the news reporter in DC with a 30 rd mag ... I say he did nothing wrong because a 30 rd mag IS OK, regardless of what the law says.

davidmcbeth said:

My point is : Who cares .. its a BB gun, not an atomic bomb.

I would NEVER find anyone guilty unless they actually injured someone.

The BOP charge? She did not scare anyone .. in fact she cannot scare anyone with anything .. only the people who get scared can elicit that emotion (their own emotion) .. in court a person cannot say "bob was angry" unless Bob actually says "I was angry". So its impossible for someone to know when people are scared. And an 86 yrs old woman? You scared of her with a BB gun? If you are then call your doctor because you are missing some balls.

Pro-gunners who complain about gun laws being wrong and then want people arrested for the same laws that, 10 sec ago, they complained about should re-assess their thinking. Like the news reporter in DC with a 30 rd mag ... I say he did nothing wrong because a 30 rd mag IS OK, regardless of what the law says.

Click to expand...

Hey Mcmeth, what planet are you from? If your theory is true, why did someone find the need to find a LEO at the meeting to inform him/her that there was a suspious white cloth wrapped item left on a chair that resembled a rifle? Seems to me "someone" was scared.

And I would certainly question your mental status when you say, " I would NEVER find anyone guilty unless they actually hurt someone". Are you serious?

....."impossible to know when people are scared". Really? ........you can't fix stupid!

Ctclassic said:

Hey Mcmeth, what planet are you from? If your theory is true, why did someone find the need to find a LEO at the meeting to inform him/her that there was a suspious white cloth wrapped item left on a chair that resembled a rifle? Seems to me "someone" was scared.

And I would certainly question your mental status when you say, " I would NEVER find anyone guilty unless they actually hurt someone". Are you serious?

....."impossible to know when people are scared". Really? ........you can't fix stupid!

Click to expand...

With a BB gun, yes. As far as testifying in court about the emotional state of a person, I am correct. One cannot testify and say "this person was angry" "this person was scared" in court. Sorry, but that's what courts have ruled for over 100 years.

So YOU would find someone guilty of having a BB gun in his car w/o a permit and send a guy away for 5 years for it huh? Who is the one with malfunctioning brain cells -- its YOU.

You should move your rantings over to the Huffington Post.

You must be scared of your own shadow.

you are correct McDave, you can't say " the person was angry", but you CAN say " the person appeared angry" or " the person looked angry"---Get the picture?

Something tells me you've had first-hand knowledge testifying on people with emotional issues....jmo

Don't worry I'm slip over to Huff Post, you take care of, 'The View'----Deal?

Oh, one more thing.....It's not my shadow I'm afraid of, it's people like yourself that scare the bajeebers out of me.

Ed is right....

Ctclassic said:

you are correct McDave, you can't say " the person was angry", but you CAN say " the person appeared angry" or " the person looked angry"---Get the picture?

Something tells me you've had first-hand knowledge testifying on people with emotional issues....jmo

Don't worry I'm slip over to Huff Post, you take care of, 'The View'----Deal?

Oh, one more thing.....It's not my shadow I'm afraid of, it's people like yourself that scare the bajeebers out of me.

Ed is right....

Click to expand...

Most judges won't allow the "looked angry either" ... that's a legal opinion, not a fact ... just sayin ... it would be stricken for being a legal conclusion.

Everyone gets angry... its quite normal. Anyone who is happy must be on drugs, right?

People like me scare you? Lucky you were not around during the time period of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. you would have been scared to death by your own illogical thoughts.

And Ed? Ed is right about some things and wrong (so wrong) about others (who isn't?) ... I think he just doesn't like it when someone disagrees with him. Ed has not posted on this thread so I don't want to discuss his personal issues w/o his knowledge of this thread. Ed is fighting for the same cause we all are on this forum ... I'm sure that any two members would not fully agree with everything they would propose or support. Ed does work hard to further gun causes as I do. Ed certainly has a vivid imagination though!

You should be focusing your attention to the BFPE board whose members violate people's 14th amendment rights, use fear and intimidation against pro se litigants, and go well beyond their statutory responsibilities and limitations. These are the people you should fear .. as they are violating the law (I think most people familiar with the hearings would agree that everything procedural I brought up during my hearing are/were proper objections).

I have violated no laws (never even been arrested), why you fear me is a mystery. Perhaps you have been duped by government officials? Or others?

The only people who have a true reason to fear me are those who wish to violate my constitutional rights and my notices of trespass. I recently had a girl scout at my house selling cookies ... I assure you I did not harm her, I ordered some cookies! Also, she was not scared of me.

So it looks like a little girl has more common sense than grown adults. None of my neighbors fear me ... so why are you fearful of me? I assure you my neighbors know me better than you do.

I think you should fear those who try to provide you with information about me to sway you into fearing me.

But good news: Packers lost !!! Yea!