• 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.

Armed man arrested at NC airport as Obama departs

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
imported post

This will be a good case to follow. Does anyone here know the open carry laws in North Carolina ? Does it apear he broke any gun laws in that state ?

Me thinks this is media hype and hysteria.
 

Ruger

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
545
Location
Occupied Greensboro, North Carolina, United States
imported post

"When the officer asked what he was doing, McVey stated 'he heard the president was in town. He stated he wanted to see the president,' according to the summary."

It is generally a BAD IDEAto go, while armed, towhere you know the president is currently located, or will be located very soon. That is asking for trouble.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

Ruger wrote:
"When the officer asked what he was doing, McVey stated 'he heard the president was in town. He stated he wanted to see the president,' according to the summary."

It is generally a BAD IDEAto go, while armed, towhere you know the president is currently located, or will be located very soon. That is asking for trouble.
Because of course, we wouldn't want rights to infect the president, would we?
 

Viorel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
66
Location
, Maryland, USA
imported post


6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.
http://www.grnc.org/firearms.htm

The only charge against him.
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
imported post

I guess a .40 springfiel handgun is the prefered choice among terrorists to bring down the 747 Air Force One ?
 

Ruger

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
545
Location
Occupied Greensboro, North Carolina, United States
imported post

Tess wrote:
Ruger wrote:
"When the officer asked what he was doing, McVey stated 'he heard the president was in town. He stated he wanted to see the president,' according to the summary."

It is generally a BAD IDEAto go, while armed, towhere you know the president is currently located, or will be located very soon. That is asking for trouble.
Because of course, we wouldn't want rights to infect the president, would we?
You disagree with my assessment?
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
imported post

Ruger wrote:
Tess wrote:
Ruger wrote:
"When the officer asked what he was doing, McVey stated 'he heard the president was in town. He stated he wanted to see the president,' according to the summary."

It is generally a BAD IDEAto go, while armed, towhere you know the president is currently located, or will be located very soon. That is asking for trouble.
Because of course, we wouldn't want rights to infect the president, would we?
You disagree with my assessment?

I disagree with your assessment. If the man had actually gone NEAR the president then I would agree. However, it sounds like this man was probably a MILE away from the president and in an area that is totally legal to carry a firearm.

The Secret Service knows he wasnt a threat. The local cops are just trying to get media attention. This story is being carried by EVERY major news outlet in America and even in Europe.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

I think the only thing this guy did wrong is that he made folks who carry guns look just a little nuttier to people predisposed to be against carry.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

Ruger wrote:
Tess wrote:
Ruger wrote:
"When the officer asked what he was doing, McVey stated 'he heard the president was in town. He stated he wanted to see the president,' according to the summary."

It is generally a BAD IDEAto go, while armed, towhere you know the president is currently located, or will be located very soon. That is asking for trouble.
Because of course, we wouldn't want rights to infect the president, would we?
You disagree with my assessment?


Yes, I do disagree.

Citizens don't give up rights just because another citizen is nearby.
 

Ruger

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
545
Location
Occupied Greensboro, North Carolina, United States
imported post

If I were going somewhere that I knew the president to be, and I had the intention of hoping to see the president, even if only from a distance, I would NOT go there armed. It is inviting problems.

Whether or not anyone thinks that we should have to disarm in this situation is irrelevant to my point. The point being that we all know just how tight security is around the president, and we know how the secret service & others in law enforcement are going to view an armed civilian anywhere in the vicinity of the president.

Unless one is hoping to be some kind of test case in court, why put yourself in that situation to begin with? This is why I say (again) that it is generally a BAD IDEAto go, while armed, towhere you know the president is currently located, or will be located very soon. That is asking for trouble.
 

Viorel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
66
Location
, Maryland, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
"For the purpose of terrifying others" is going to be tough to prove.
The law isn't very OC friendly at all. It pretty much says "yeah you can carry a gun, but if people freak out...".

Is NC a more CC state?
 

elixin77

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
591
Location
Greenville, NC, ,
imported post

Viorel wrote:
eye95 wrote:
"For the purpose of terrifying others" is going to be tough to prove.
The law isn't very OC friendly at all. It pretty much says "yeah you can carry a gun, but if people freak out...".

Is NC a more CC state?
Going armed to the terror of the public (or gatttotp) is a bogus charge. You can really only charge someone with that if they are doing all three:
-On a public highway
-brandishing a weapon
-and threatening to kill someone

if those conditions aren't met, then they have no case.

NC is fairly OC friendly, provided the LEOs are somewhat educated.
 

Viorel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
66
Location
, Maryland, USA
imported post

You have to...

1. Have the weapon...
2. Have the intent..
3. Act in the manner.

My point is this line right here...

Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

Ca Patriot wrote:
This will be a good case to follow. Does anyone here know the open carry laws in North Carolina ? Does it apear he broke any gun laws in that state ?

Me thinks this is media hype and hysteria.
Please note that no one has cited effectively a North Carolina Statute. I do recall that NC has a GATTTOTP but that is no citation, the devil being in the details.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-288.3.html
§ 14‑288.3. Provisions of Article intended to supplement common law and other statutes.

The provisions of this Article are intended to supersede and extend the coverage of the common‑law crimes of riot and inciting to riot. To the extent that such common‑law offenses may embrace situations not covered under the provisions of this Article, however, criminal prosecutions may be brought for such crimes under the common law. All other provisions of the Article are intended to be supplementary and additional to the common law and other statutes of this State and, except as specifically indicated, shall not be construed to abrogate, abolish, or supplant other provisions of law. In particular, this Article shall not be deemed to abrogate, abolish, or supplant such common‑law offenses as unlawful assembly, rout, conspiracy to commit riot or other criminal offenses, false imprisonment, and going about armed to the terror of the populace and other comparable public‑nuisance offenses. (1969, c. 869, s. 1.)
 

Viorel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
66
Location
, Maryland, USA
imported post

Please note that no one has cited effectively a North Carolina Statute. I do recall that NC has a GATTTOTP but that is no citation, the devil being in the details.
I did, scroll up.

No other charges (at this point) besides that one according to the media.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Viorel wrote:

6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.
http://www.grnc.org/firearms.htm

The only charge against him.
I believe Viorel's post above cites NC law on the subject and contains a citation of a site that has the text of NC firearm's law--unless there is some doubt that the website has correctly presented the text of NC's laws. If that is the contention, I would hope that the person who claims that this is not a correct copy of the law would check on that and support the claim.

On edit: Sorry, Viorel. I must have responded at about the same time you did. Well, I did save folks some scrolling.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

Viorel wrote:
Please note that no one has cited effectively a North Carolina Statute. I do recall that NC has a GATTTOTP but that is no citation, the devil being in the details.
I did, scroll up.

No other charges (at this point) besides that one according to the media.
Excuse me, counselor, I see no elements defined, no elements of a crime. I am not a resident of NC, I-ANAL and a coward.

Over and out.
 
Top