• 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.

Man with handgun, ammunition arrested at BWI

G

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
gregma wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Both laptops and guns can be used to commit illegal acts. The only difference is that unless you decide to smash someones head in with the computer... laptopsdo not kill people.
Click to expand...

:shock::what:


I'm confused by this statement. Are you implying that only the laptop requires a decision to kill people, where guns do it all by themselves? Posessing the owner into going on a killing spree?

Seems to me, unless you decide to take out the firearm from it's holster and shoot someone, guns do not kill people.

Is that statement wrong??
Click to expand...


Ahh!! Allow me to clarify my brain processing....

Computers are not designed to kill people.. while guns are. :lol:

But in the end.. computers and guns do not kill people.... people do!
Click to expand...
You've obviously never had to work on a computer 15 hours a day as a programmer or tester!! :D
 
P

PaulG

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
43
Location
Fairfax, Virginia, USA
imported post

The guy probably went to the airport to drop someone off or to meet someone arriving.

He probably used the justification that the 2nd Amendment allows him to carry a firearm. He also rationalized everything with the old "concealed is concealed" argument.

He did not do anything wrong. But, unfortunately, according to the Peoples Republik of Maryland, he commited a crime.

I hope he gets off but since we are talking about Maryland, I believe he is screwed!
 
C

chesire17201

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
92
Location
Chambersburg,Pa, ,
imported post

this guy will probably get the book thrown at him, to make an example out of " those gun toten virginian's"......but if he was an 18 yr old baltimore "native" he'd end up with a sweet plea deal and do probation......if that......
 
G

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
gregma wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
You have the right to beep and bear arms... The Constitution does not permit youKeep and Conceal them. ;)
Click to expand...
Nor does it forbid you from Keep and Conceal. It only stipulates that you can not infringe on being allowed to keep arms, and it says that you can not infringe on being allowed to bear arms. Saying you can not bear them in one fashion or another would make that a defacto infringement.
Click to expand...
But since it is not explicitly in there... it does not forbid a state from preventing it. :D
Click to expand...
Sure it does. "Shall Not Be Infringed". Why do people have so much difficulty with that word "Infringed"?

If you restrict, forbid, prevent, disallow, require a license, make a law against. You are infringing. :p
 
P

PaulG

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
43
Location
Fairfax, Virginia, USA
imported post

He probably got noticed by the TSA because he noticed them and got nervous because he knew that when he left the US for Maryland, he would be in trouble if the authorities knew about his gun.

They didn't pick him up because he was standing at the ticket counter, they picked him up because they could tell he was nervous.

Sounds like the training works. It was just applied on the wrong person. If Maryland honored the Constitution, he would have been legal and therefore, not nervous.
 
Dutch Uncle

Dutch Uncle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,715
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Bayboy,
The article clearly implies he intended to fly, since it said his "suspicious behavior" was observed while standing on line at the ticket counter.
 
R

Renegade

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
270
Location
Yorktown, VA, ,
imported post

The fact is this man did nothing wrong.

Who amongst us has a problem with a law-abiding citizen carrying a firearm for protection against criminals or a tyrannical government?

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what this man did - there is everything wrong with the despots that created ANY law the infringed upon another mans right to life. This is not a gun issue...this is a right to life issue, a freedom issue, a liberty issue, etc. We are all born with the God-given right to defend ourselves.

To the jack-booted thugs that dare arrest a man for doing what is right - may they burn in hell for eternity and I mean that with every bit of my flesh, blood, and soul. As a "peace officer" that is sworn to "protect and serve" you have violated all rightfulness, goodness, honesty, respect, and dignity the moment you lay your filthy hands upon a man that lawfully carries a firearm.

And when I use the term lawfully I wish to be clear here...I am not speaking of a law penned by a corrupt politician or other government slave - I am speaking of God's Law...or as some say, natural law.

No one taught any of us that to rape, kill, pillage, or plunder was wrong - we all know that this is wrong just as we all know that infringing upon a mans right to keep and bear arms in ANY fashion is wrong also.

That man did not create a problem by lawfully carrying a firearm - the government created the problem by attempting to prohibit all that is good and just.
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
Are you saying that the words "shall not be infringed" aren't in the Bill of Rights anywhere at all?

Again, "shall not be infringed" does forbid it. How? Why? Because such restriction is an infringement, by very definition of the word.

Cops only see what suits their will for domination... We could tattoo it backwards on his forehead, so he'd see it every day, and he would still choose to pretend as though he didn't know it.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

First off... It appears that it is geared more towards an organized group of people that would get together to fight and wouldallow themaccess to guns tofight with. But it can be construed that the people of the state are those people however they are in no way organized at all.

But let's delve into the meaning of "Bear arms..."

"Bearing arms," throughout the 18th century,meant to serve as a soldier or to fight (including bearing arms against another man in individual self-defense). Where the term "bear arms" appears, itself, without further modifiers, did not infer a broader meaning such as hunting or the mere carrying or wearing of arms.

So since concealing a firearm was not expressly included... you cannot read into it to give yourself more than what is says at face value.

So your right to keep and carry is not infringed... you just cannot hide it.

Same applies to states that ban how many rounds you can have in it out in public. Some say no more than 10, some say no more than 20. This is not an infringement on your rights either. The amendment says nothing about how many rounds you can have in it.
 
C

Citizen

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

LEO 229 wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Are you saying that the words "shall not be infringed" aren't in the Bill of Rights anywhere at all?

Again, "shall not be infringed" does forbid it. How? Why? Because such restriction is an infringement, by very definition of the word.

Cops only see what suits their will for domination... We could tattoo it backwards on his forehead, so he'd see it every day, and he would still choose to pretend as though he didn't know it.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

First off... It appears that it is geared more towards an organized group of people that would get together to fight and wouldallow themaccess to guns tofight with. But it can be construed that the people of the state are those people however they are in no way organized at all.

But let's delve into the meaning of "Bear arms..."

"Bearing arms," throughout the 18th century,meant to serve as a soldier or to fight (including bearing arms against another man in individual self-defense). Where the term "bear arms" appears, itself, without further modifiers, did not infer a broader meaning such as hunting or the mere carrying or wearing of arms.

So since concealing a firearm was not expressly included... you cannot read into it to give yourself more than what is says at face value.

So your right to keep and carry is not infringed... you just cannot hide it.

Same applies to states that ban how many rounds you can have in it out in public. Some say no more than 10, some say no more than 20. This is not an infringement on your rights either. The amendment says nothing about how many rounds you can have in it.
Click to expand...

I'm not in Dave Kopel's league or any of the real 2A scholars; heck I'm not even in Mike Supermoderator's league.

But I do know this. The 2A forbids the federal gov't from infringing. The states were not restrained by it. There are some six states that do not have 2A guaranteed in their state constitution. The 14A made a number of the Bill of Rights enforceable on the states. Its still an argument whether14A applied to 2A.

It is recognized that none of the fundamental rights are absolute. If one wants to argue they should be absolute, you have to startallowing guns to felons and the insane.

Scholars have nailed down that "bear arms" went far beyond militia service and included personal defense and hunting. Also, the militia-only idea is relatively recent, just in the last 50 years.Separately, because the term "bear arms" was often used in a military/militia context, for example, "bear arms against the king," does not limit the usage to that exclusively. Another source of information is the state constitutions. A number of them actually use the words, "keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, and the state." I can't recall clearly, but I think at least one mentions hunting. (Pennsylvania?)

The scholarship on 2A in the last 20 or 25 years is vast. The meaning of "bear arms" is one aspect covered. Check it out. I've done most of my reading on the internet, so its out there somewhere.

If nothing else you'll have tremendous increased personal certainty on the meaning of the 2A. And you'll have a ton of handy arguments for dissenters. More than you can keep upwith.Well, maybe you can. I can't.
 
B

bayboy42

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
897
Location
Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
imported post

Dutch aka Obie Won...I respectfully disagree with interpretation of the story. I stood at a "ticket counter" in Newport News/Williamsburg International airport last Friday carrying concealed to pick up my tickets for my trip next month. Most of the 20 or so airports I've passed through in the last 5 years all have the ticket counters outside of the secure area, which in Virginia and Maryland, is not off limits to open or concealed carry (with a permit of course).

Why did I make such a stink about this particular aspect of the story, because its yet another example of a media spin where they tried to make the reader believe that the man intended to carry his firearm on an airplane when that wasn't necessarily the case:what:. Ultimately the article is inconclusive on what the man's intentions were. Its more bad press for gun owners:shock:.

This individual screwed up solely for nothave a license to carry a concealed weapon.....which as you can see from several of the previous posts in debatable.
 
E

echo6tango

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
230
Location
, Maryland, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
ixtow wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:

Same applies to states that ban how many rounds you can have in it out in public. Some say no more than 10, some say no more than 20. This is not an infringement on your rights either. The amendment says nothing about how many rounds you can have in it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This bit alone exposes your double-talk.

If there is to be no infringement, then there can be no limits, that's what infringement is! Hello?
Click to expand...

You have the freedom of religion, but only if you exercise it on Tuesdays, you have the freedom of speech, but only in written form, you have the freedom of petition, but only in person, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but only with only one round of ammunition...

I concur, you cannot provide a freedom and then further infringe on that freedom and still call it a freedom.
 
E

echo6tango

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
230
Location
, Maryland, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
gregma wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
You have the right to beep and bear arms... The Constitution does not permit youKeep and Conceal them. ;)
Click to expand...
Nor does it forbid you from Keep and Conceal. It only stipulates that you can not infringe on being allowed to keep arms, and it says that you can not infringe on being allowed to bear arms. Saying you can not bear them in one fashion or another would make that a defacto infringement.
Click to expand...
But since it is not explicitly in there... it does not forbid a state from preventing it. :D
Click to expand...
So a State can prevent its citizens from posting opinions on Internet forums since the 1st Amendment does not explicitly state freedom of speech "via web logs on the Internet" A State can prevent a Mormon from attending their church since it's not explicitly detailed as a form of religion in the 1st Amendment? A State can prevent someone from emailing their representatives since that form of petition is not addressed in the 1st Amendment?
 
E

echo6tango

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
230
Location
, Maryland, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
So your right to keep and carry is not infringed... you just cannot hide it.
Click to expand...
My ass my right is not infringed...I can keep, but I cannot legally carry in MD. Hide it or not, I would be breaking the freaking State law unless I can prove to the MSP that I have some "reasonable fear of apprehension" and through their good graces, they would issue me a permit...only to tell me after when and where I could then carry...I call that a bit of infringement...
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
I expected such a retort.


"First off... It appears that it is geared more towards an organized group of people that would get together to fight and wouldallow themaccess to guns tofight with. But it can be construed that the people of the state are those people however they are in no way organized at all."

And if the entity needing fought against is the one that makes the rules about having the weapons?

Consider the context and very recent history of those who wrote this. Sure, doing that wouldn't fit your agenda. But humor me, just for the time it takes to read it. They didn't want government in control of arms. That the Militia is comprised of the free citizens, no standing army, the greatest evil of all, would be needed. Only with an untouchable right of the citizens to be thusly armed, would a legitimately free state be able to exist.

Even in a purely grammatical sense, the militia part is a dependent clause. It can't even stand as a functional sentence on it's own, much less an interpretation of law. The only independent clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Not a single statement in the entire Constitution uses such strong and clear language.

And again, you fail to recognize the 10th Amendment. It deprives any and all government from restricting the above enumerated rights. Reserving unto the States only those things not already expressly forbidden.

"Shall not be infringed" is rather well forbidden.

"security of a free state" means security of the freedom and the state, not jsut the state. Unarmed, the freedom is gone. Thusly compromising the very word of the law. Even with the inculsion of this, the meaning is not lost. And knowing that the definition of a "Militia" is that armed force of the populace NOT under the control of the state.... There simply is no legitimate argument that can be made against it.

You have to ignore it in whole or in part, or just flat-out lie.
Click to expand...
Not that you willactually do it.... since you skipped over it in your long rant. But maybe you can show usin the 2nd amendmentwhere it clearly points outthat you have theright toconceal those arms on your person while out in public?

I agree that you can keep and bear them..... But where does it permitconcealment?

If it is not clearly identified..you can then be restricted as to how youtransport those arms before you actually need to bear them.

Keeping in mind that is says nothing about bearing "loaded" arms either.

And don't hate me for my interpretation. It seems that the people knowing the laws much better then me see it that way too. There are laws covering how they can be transported in most states. "Unloaded andwrapped in a secure container."
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

echo6tango wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
So your right to keep and carry is not infringed... you just cannot hide it.
Click to expand...
My ass my right is not infringed...I can keep, but I cannot legally carry in MD. Hide it or not, I would be breaking the freaking State law unless I can prove to the MSP that I have some "reasonable fear of apprehension" and through their good graces, they would issue me a permit...only to tell me after when and where I could then carry...I call that a bit of infringement...
Click to expand...
Keep in mind we are talking about concealed carry right now... thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top